THE 



SPEECHES 

IN 

PARLIAMENT 

OF 

SAMUEL HORSLEY, 

LL. D. F. R. S. F. A. S. 



LATE 

LORD BISHOP OF ST ASAPH. 



DUNDEE : 
printen ly, Iloom Stephen EintouT; 

FOR JAMES CHALMERS J AND SOLD BY LONGMAN, HURST, REES, ORME, 
# BROWN, F. C. £f J. RIVINGTON, AND T. HAMILTON, LONDON J 
A. CONSTABLE # COMPANY, AND J. BALLANTYNE $ COMPANY, 
EDINBURGH. 

1813. 



Msg 



TO THE 

LORD GRENVILLE. 

MY LORD, 

As the political leader 
to whom, with the exception of 
my late much-lamented friend Mr 
Windham, my father was most 
strongly attached, I inscribe to 
your Lordship the following vo- 
lume of his Parliamentary Speech- 
es. I believe, on all the great na- 
tional questions but one to which 
these speeches relate, your Lord- 
ship and the Bishop were speakers 



II 



on the same side ; and on that 
one., my father writes thus to me, 
only four weeks before his death. 

" I at present intend being up 
at the meeting of Parliament ; but 
shall leave * * * * * * behind me 
here, as I foresee nothing likely to 
occur in the House that should de- 
tain me above a fortnight in Lon- 
don. The Roman Catholics will 
be before us again this session. 
My mind was never so long unset- 
tled upon any great question be- 
fore. Something must be done ; 
but what, I am not prepared to 
say, I shall see Windham as soon 
as I get to town, and probably my 



B • • 
111 



friends Lords Spencer and Grex- 
ville ; for I suspect there is real- 
ly no great difference of opinion 
between us." 

What might have been the re- 
sult of such a conference, it is not 
for me, rny Lord, to determine : 
But of this I am certain, that even 
had the differences of opinion turn- 
ed out great, yet your Lordship's 
continuing to advocate the cause of 
the Roman Catholics would not in 
the smallest degree have lessened 
the perfect confidence my father 
placed in you as the faithful friend 
and sincere supporter of the Esta- 
blished Church, 



iv 



With the highest admiration of 
your public principles, and the ut- 
most personal respect, I remain, 
my Lord, your Lordship's most 
obedient humble servant, 

H. Horsley. 



Dundee, 23d January 1813. 



CONTENTS. 



PAGE 



Upon Earl Stanhope's Bill for the Repeal of certain Pe- 
nal Laws ; June 9, 1789 1 

Upon the second reading of the Bill for the Relief of 
Roman Catholics, under certain conditions; May 31, 
1791 . 35 

In reply to the Lord Chancellor, upon the second read- 
ing of the Bill for the Relief of the Scottish Episco- 
palians; May 2, 1792 68 

Upon the Weldon Enclosure Bill, in committee ; May 
22, 1792 87 

On the third reading of the Treason Bill ; November 
3Q, 1795 167 

On the English Militia going to Ireland ; June 19, 1798. 184? 

Upon the Bill to Regulate the Slave-Trade within cer- 
tain limits ; July 5, 1799 M 195 

Upon the Adultery Bill ; May 23, 1800 259 

Upon the Bill to Prevent the Increase of Papists, and 
to Regulate the existing Monastic Institutions ; July 
10, 1800 307 



11 

PAGE 

On the Preliminaries of Peace between England and 
the French Republic ; November 3, 1801 - 359 

On Laws relating to Spiritual Persons; June 10, 1803. 375 

Upon the Bill to Regulate the Ages of Persons to be 
admitted into Holy Orders; April 13, 1804- 421 

Upon the Bill relating to the Stipends of London In- 
cumbents; July 23, 1804< 432 

On the Petition from the Roman Catholics of Ireland ; 
May 13, 1805 , 486 

On the Slave-Trade; June 24, 1806 517 



UPON EARL STANHOPE'S BILL FOR THE 
REPEAL OF CERTAIN PENAL LAWS ; 

June 9, 1789. 



On the 18th of May 1789, Earl Stanhope 
moved for leave to bring in a bill " for re- 
lieving members of the church of England 
from sundry penalties and disabilities to 
which by the laws now in force they may be 
liable, and for extending freedom in mat- 
ters of religion to all persons (Papists, on 
account of their persecuting and dangerous 
principles, only excepted), and for other pur- 
poses therein mentioned." As the founda- 
tion of this bill, Earl Stanhope laid before 
their Lordships an account of all the penal 

A 



i 



I 

laws, whether existing, obsolete, or repeal- 
ed, which had been enacted from the earliest 
times upon matters of religion, sorcery, and 
various other subjects ; and urged the in- 
justice as well as disgrace of suffering them 
to remain any longer amongst our statutes. 

The bill was read a second time on the 
9th of June ; and opposed by the Arch- 
bishop of Canterbury, by the Bishops of 
Bangor and St Asaph, and by Dr Horsley, 
then Bishop of St David's, in the follow- 
ing words. 



" MY LORDS, 

" In a variety of laws framed in 
different periods of our history, either for 
the maintenance of religion in general, or 
for the particular security of the national 
church, that some may be yet standing upon 
the statute-book unrepealed, which do little 



3 

credit to the spirit of the times in which 
they were enacted, I shall not take upon me 
to deny. In the repeal, the specific repeal of 
laws of this description, I for my part, and 
I trust my brethren of the Episcopal bench, 
will never be unwilling to concur. My 
Lords, if laws be subsisting, contrary to the 
principles of just government, infractive of 
the rights of private conscience, repugnant 
to the mild spirit of the religion we pro- 
fess, — if such, laws subsist, the fortunate cir- 
cumstance of the times in which we live, 
that no persecution is stirring or likely to 
be stirred, is no reason, in my judgment, 
that such laws should be suffered to remain 
in force : It is a sufficient ground for the 
repeal of them, that they are weapons loose- 
ly lying about, which the Fiend of Persecu- 
tion may at any time pick up and employ 
to her own fell purpose, if any unfortunate 
revolution in the temper of mankind should 



4 



set her free from the restraints which the 
tolerance of the times for the present lays 
upon her. My Lords, it is not enough 
that this daemon be kept in order for the 
time by the prevalence of the contrary prin- 
ciple, — that she sit mopping, abashed, dis- 
heartened, under the conviction that the 
hand and heart of every man are against 
her : My Lords, she should be disarmed, 
and laid in chains until the judgment of the 
Great Day ; my Lords, her armour should 
be broken and her chains rivetted. 

" But, my Lords, if the peaceful state 
and temper of the times afford no reason 
for the continuance of laws which in worse 
times might be oppressive, your Lordships, 
I persuade myself, will think it a strong 
reason for taking time to proceed with due 
deliberation and caution in so important a 
business as the revisal and reform of so 
considerable a branch of our criminal law 



5 



as that which regards offences against re- 
ligion. Your Lordships will think it be- 
comes your wisdom to consider the contents 
of the writing before you apply the sponge; 
lest, meaning only to obliterate oppressive 
laws, you abolish the most beneficial and 
necessary restraints, 

" My Lords, my objection to the bill 
upon the table is, that I can discover no- 
thing in it of this discretion : It drives fu- 
riously and precipitately at its object, beat- 
ing down every barrier which the wisdom 
of our ancestors had opposed against vice 
and irreligion, and tearing up the very foun- 
dations of our ecclesiastical constitution. 
My Lords, if this bill should pass into a 
law, no established religion will be left. 
My Lords, when I say that no establish- 
ed religion will be left, I desire to be un- 
derstood in the utmost extent of my ex- 
pressions : I mean, my Lords, not only 



6 



that the particular establishment which now 
subsists will be destroyed, but that no esta- 
blishment will remain of the Christian re- 
ligion in any shape, — nor indeed of natural 
religion. My Lords, this bill, should it un- 
fortunately pass into a law, will leave our 
mutilated constitution a novelty in the an- 
nals of mankind, a prodigy, my Lords, in 
politics, — a civil polity without any public 
religion for its basis. 

" My Lords, these are not rhetorical 
words, that go beyond the truth of the 
thing. To convince your Lordships that 
they are not, I shall beg your indulgence 
while I endeavour to show the operation 
of this bill both upon the statute law and 
the ecclesiastical jurisdiction. 

" First, for the effect of the bill upon 
the statute law. My Lords, the first clause. 
—But, by the way, I must apprize your 
Lordships, that I mean to confine my re- 



7 



marks to so much of the bill as relates to 
the laws concerning religion ; other mat- 
ters are oddly enough intermixed, but I 
confine myself to what concerns religion. 
I have no objection to the noble earl's 
eating beef in preference to any other meat, 
on any day of the year or any hour of the 
day. — The first clause, my Lords, so far as 
it relates to the laws concerning religion, 
abrogates in a lump all the laws in the sta- 
tute-book relating to the observation of the 
Lord's-day. My Lords, do your Lordships 
perceive any thing in the manners of the 
times that calls for the abolition or the re- 
laxation of those laws ? Are we guilty of 
any childish superstition in the observance 
of the day, that may interfere with duties 
of a higher obligation ? My Lords, is not 
the contrary notorious ? Is it not notorious, 
that the business and the pleasures of all 
ranks of the people are going on, on the 



8 



Lord's-day, with little interruption ? Per- 
haps, my Lords, some extravagant severity 
in the penalties of these laws may call for 
mitigation. My Lords, I certainly shall 
not be the advocate for that law of Queen 
Elizabeth which imposes a fine of 20/. per 
month upon any person above the age of 
sixteen who neglects to go to church; much 
less shall I pretend to vindicate that law of 
James the First by which the King is au- 
thorized to refuse the 20/. per month, and 
take two thirds of all lands, tenements, and 
hereditaments. There might be reasons to 
justify these laws at the time when they 
were passed ; — I shall not enter into that 
question : Those reasons subsist no longer, 
and those laws now are not to be defended. 
But, my Lords, the noble earl's bill equally 
abrogates the 1st Eliz. cap. 2. sect. 14, ; to 
which no objection can be made on account 
of the severity of its penalties. My Lords, 



i 



9 

this law only imposes upon every person 
who, without a lawful or reasonable ex- 
cuse, shall absent himself from his parish 
church or chapel on Sundays or holidays, 
the very moderate fine of one shilling for 
every offence, over and above the censures 
of the church. My Lords, this fine, is too 
small to be oppressive upon the poorest of 
the people. Suppose that the common 
day-labourer be absent from church every 
Sunday in the year, and that the fine be 
levied for every offence, my Lords, the 
amount of it in the whole year, even up- 
on the supposition that it may be levied 
twice on each Sunday, is much less than 
the offender would probably squander in 
the same time in riotous pleasures, to the 
great injury of his family, if he were relea- 
sed from the restraint of this law. This 
penalty, my Lords, is just what the pe- 
nalty of such a law should be ; it is a light- 



10 



er evil to the individual than he will be 
apt to bring upon himself by the neglect 
of that which the law requires to be done : 
For, my Lords, it is a notorious fact, that 
the common people of this country, if they 
do not keep the Sunday religiously, keep it 
in another manner ; if they do not go to 
church, they spend the day in houses of 
riotous pleasure. My Lords, the severity 
of the law (what little severity there is in it) 
is abated by the allowance_ that it gives to 
" lawful and reasonable excuses." Its pe- 
nalties are to be levied only upon those who 
without " lawful and reasonable excuse" 
neglect to resort to their parish-church. 
" Lawful and reasonable excuse : " My 
Lords, these are large words, which leave 
much in the discretion of the magistrate 
who is to enforce the law. A lawful ex- 
cuse, indeed, may seem to signify such ex- 
cuses only as were allowed by the laws in 



being at the time when this law was made ; 
but a reasonable excuse, is every excuse 
which the reason of man, judging by its 
own laws and its own maxims, may ap- 
prove. My Lords, in the present state of 
manners, great distance from the parish 
church or chapel must be deemed a rea- 
sonable excuse. The noble earl, in the 
speech with which he introduced the bill un- 
der consideration, mentioned a case which 
had lately happened in the country, in 
which this law had been enforced against a 
person whose dwelling-house was at an ex- 
travagant distance from any place of wor- 
ship. My Lords, this case, if it really was 
as it was stated to the noble earl, — if the 
great distance was pleaded and given in 
proof, and the fine was notwithstanding le- 
vied, — this case, I say, bears very hard, in 
my judgment, upon the discretion of the 
magistrates who took the information : But, 



12 



my Lords, that's all ; the blame was in the 
magistrates, not in the law ; for your Lord- 
ships must be sensible that the mildest laws 
are liable to be abused by misapplication. 

" But perhaps, my Lords, this law may 
be allowed to be reasonable enough as far 
as it regards the Sunday, but it may seem 
a circumstance of extravagant severity that 
the observance of holidays as well as Sun- 
days is required under the same penalties. 
My Lords, I revert to my former observa- 
tion, — that the law allows " lawful and rea- 
sonable excuses" on any day ; and in the 
present state of manners, I conceive, my 
Lords, that the ordinary occupations of life 
form a reasonable excuse of absence from 
divine service upon holidays, with the ex- 
ception of a very few, — namely, Christmas- 
day, Good Friday, the King's Accession, 
and occasional fasts and thanksgivings. Per- 
haps the noble earl may wish me to except 



13 



another day, which, if I guess aright, his 
Lordship means to add to the calendar. 
With the exception of these few days, the 
ordinary occupations of life are, as I con- 
ceive, a reasonable excuse of absence from 
church on any holiday. My Lords, they 
are much more ; they are a lawful excuse, 
— they are such an excuse as the magistrates 
before whom an information may be laid 
are bound by law to take notice of. My 
Lords, the magistrate is bound to take no- 
tice of this excuse, by the very law which 
settles the holidays of our calendar, by the 
5th and 6th Edward VI. cap. 3. My Lords, 
in that very statute your Lordships will find 
a proviso to this effect. (Here the Bishop 
read from his notes the sixth paragraph of 
the statute mentioned ; which provides, 
that " it shall be lawful to every husband- 
man, labourer, fisherman, and to all and 
every other person and persons, of what 



14 



estate, degree, or condition, he or they be, 
upon the holidays aforesaid, in harvest, or 
at any other times in the year, when ne- 
cessity shall require, to labour, ride, fish, or 
work any kind of work, at their free-wills 
and pleasure ; any thing in this act to the 
contrary notwithstanding.") 

" But in truth, my Lords, the noble earl, 
though he mentioned this as one of the laws 
which he particularly disapproved, com- 
plained not of the severity of its penalties : 
He objected to the principle of the law; 
he contended that it lays a restraint upon 
private conscience, exacting the payment 
of a fine for not doing that which to do 
might be contrary to conscience. 

" My Lords, I think this a fair objection 
against the law as it stood originally, in the 
time of Queen Elizabeth ; when the sub- 
ject was not indulged in a freedom of 
choice between the established church and 



15 



other modes of worship: But, my Lords, it 
is no objection now against the law, as it is 
modified by the acts of toleration, — first by 
the 1st of William and Mary, and since by 
the 19th of the present King. By virtue 
of these statutes, any legal meeting-house 
to which a dissenter may choose to resort 
is to all intents and purposes of the 1st of 
Elizabeth, cap. 2. his parish-church. Who- 
ever dislikes the rites of the church of Eng- 
land is secured from all penalties by a re- 
gular attendance on divine worship in a re- 
gular meeting-house of any denomination. 
My Lords, I can see no severity in the sta- 
tute of Elizabeth thus modified and miti- 
gated by the toleration-acts. But the noble 
earl put the case of a conscience that might 
scruple public worship in every shape: His 
Lordship quoted our Saviour's admonition 
to his disciples to avoid ostentation in their 
private devotions, as what might be under- 



16 



stood as a prohibition of the practice of wor- 
shipping at all in public ; and he thought 
the statute of Queen Elizabeth a con- 
straint upon the conscience of a man who 
should so interpret our Saviour's maxim. 
My Lords, I understand very well that men 
may think differently of particular modes 
of worship, — that the conscience of one 
man may scruple what another approves ; 
but I had so little apprehension that con- 
science could doubt the propriety of public 
worship in every shape, that I really thought 
the noble earl was not in earnest in that 
part of his argument. My Lords, the noble 
earl was in earnest : His lordship has since 
mentioned an instance to me of a person, 
in the circle of his own connexions and 
of my acquaintance, who was afflicted with 
one of those strange consciences ; a noble- 
man eminent for the probity of his charac- 
ter and the severity of his morals, who, 



17 

from conscientious scruples, never in his 
life mixed with any congregation of Chris- 
tians in their public rites. My Lords, I am 
compelled by this instance to admit, that 
that sort of conscience, which I thought a 
mere fiction, may exist ; and I must admit 
that the statute of Queen Elizabeth lays 
some degree of force upon such a con- 
science. I must therefore beg your Lord- 
ships' indulgence while I say a few words 
upon this great question of the right of 
private conscience ; which I think is not 
generally understood. 

" My Lords, the noble earl, in the second 
clause of his bill, lays down this maxim, 
that the right of conscience is and ever 
must be " the unalienable right of man- 
kind; and as such, ought always to be held 
sacred and inviolable." My Lords, I agree 
entirely with the noble earl in that maxim. 
I am not certain that his lordship will a- 

B 



16 



gree with me in what I am going to ad- 
vance ; — I think he will ; for I really think 
no one can differ from me who allows that 
civil government is a thing consistent with 
the revealed will of God. My Lords, the 
right of conscience is unalienable; but it is 
not infinite, it is limited. The right of 
conscience is unalienable within the limits 
of a certain jurisdiction. Conscience and 
the magistrate have their separate jurisdic- 
tions ; each is supreme, absolute, and in- 
dependent, within the limits of their own. 
The jurisdiction of conscience is over the 
actions of the individual as they relate to 
God, without reference to society : Con- 
science judges of what is sinful or not sin- 
ful in our actions. The jurisdiction of the 
magistrate is over the actions of men as 
they respect society : He is the judge of 
what harm may or may not result to socie- 
ty from our actions ; and this harm he has 



19 



a right to restrain and to punish, in what- 
ever actions he descries it, in defiance, my 
Lords, of the plea of conscience. In the 
exercise of this right, my Lords, the civil 
magistrate is supreme and absolute, as 
conscience in the exercise of hers. Con- 
science, my Lords, cannot be conscien- 
tiously pleaded against the magistrate in 
the exercise of this right. My Lords, if 
the principle which I advance is rightly 
taken, I shall not be suspected of wishing 
to narrow the limits of toleration. My 
Lords, I advance a principle which carries 
toleration to the utmost effect to which it 
can be carried, consistently with the secu- 
rity of civil government. My Lords, ac- 
cording to my principle, the magistrate has 
no right to punish an action, be it ever so 
sinful, merely because it is sinful ; he has 
no right to punish it, unless beside the sin 
it contain crime, — that is, harm to society. 



20 



Thus, in the instance of perjury : Perjury 
is an action sinful in so high a degree that 
the sin may justly be considered as by far 
the greater part of the whole guilt ; and 
this action is punished by the magistrate : 
But the object of the magistrate's animad- 
version is not the sin of the action, enor- 
mous as it is ; but the crime of it — the 
harm it brings to society : An oath is the 
very first and highest of all civil obligations 
and securities ; and society must break up 
were perjury to go unpunished. My Lords, 
I think I have been fortunate in falling up- 
on this instance for the illustration of my 
argument ; because it will serve as a prin- 
ciple to determine the extent of the magi- 
strate's authority over the religious conduct 
of the subject, notwithstanding any plea of 
conscience. My Lords, since the magi- 
strate has a clear right to punish perjury on 
account of the ruin it would bring upon 



21 



society, he has, upon the same ground, a 
right to punish whatever tends to render 
perjury frequent — whatever tends to lessen 
the general veneration of an oath, My 
Lords, upon this principle, the magistrate 
has a right to restrain and punish open 
atheism, and the disavowal of God's provi- 
dential government of the world. And, 
my Lords, we must go one step farther : 
Since the magistrate, in this country, be- 
lieves that he is possessed of a written re- 
velation of God's will, he must punish the 
open disbelief and denial of that revela- 
tion : He has no right to persecute parti- 
cular opinions, however erroneous, of sects 
professing a general belief in the revela- 
tion ; but he has a right to punish the 
general disbelief and total rejection of it. 
And since he has a right to punish athe- 
ism, a disavowal of God's providence, and 
a total rejection of the Christian revela- 



22 



tion, he has a right to restrain and punish 
action^, in which, as they are interpreted 
by the general sense of mankind, these 
pernicious opinions are implied : He has 
therefore a right to restrain and to punish 
the neglect of public worship, which is one 
of those actions : And any man whose con- 
science is of that singular construction as to 
disapprove all public worship, would deal 
but handsomely by his country in submit- 
ting cheerfully and silently to the very 
rnoderate penalty which our laws impose. 
My Lords, besides this statute of Queen 
Elizabeth, the bill upon the table, should 
it pass into a law, will repeal the act of 
• Charles the Second for the better observa- 

tion of the LordVday (29th Charles II. 
cap. 7.) ; and from this time forth, stage- 
coaches and waggons will travel the road 
— watermen will ply upon the Thames — 
liackney-coachmen in the streets, upon the 



23 



Lord's-day as on any other, under the ex- 
press sanction of the law. The bill will 
also repeal the act of Henry the Sixth 
(27th Hen. VI. cap. 5.) against the keeping 
of fairs and markets on the Lord's-day; for 
the bill takes away all prosecution in any 
court for the neglect of any rite or cere- 
mony of the church of England. The ob- 
servation of the Lord's-day is enjoined by 
these laws only as a ceremony of the 
church; therefore all prosecutions are staid 
that might be founded upon these statutes, 
and the statutes are virtually repealed. 

u My Lords, I should now consider the 
effect of this law upon the ecclesiastical 
jurisdiction ; but I fear your Lordships are 
already tired with the length of this dry 
debate. I shall therefore confine myself to 
a few short remarks upon points which I 
think have not been touched by the right 
reverend lords who have gone before me, 



24 



" My Lords, the bill goes to the aboli- 
tion of the ecclesiastical jurisdiction in all 
offences against religion. The noble earl, 
in his speech on the first reading, ex- 
pressed great dislike of the ecclesiastical 
courts : His lordship thought it a great- 
object ion, that the mode of trial in thern 
is not by jury. My Lords, will the noble 
earl extend this objection to every court 
in which he finds the same defect ? Has 
the Court of Chancery a jury ? has the 
Admiralty Court a jury ? Would the 
noble earl abolish the jurisdiction of every 
court in which the mode of trial is not by 
jury ? I do not remember whether his 
lordship made another objection to the 
ecclesiastical courts, which, in my opi- 
nion, is of much greater weight, — their 
way of taking the depositions of witnes- 
ses ; not viva voce, by examination and 
cross-examination in the presence of the 



25 



parties and their counsel, but by answers 
given in private to written interrogatories. 
My Lords, in my judgment this practice in 
the ecclesiastical courts is a thing much 
more exceptionable than the want of a 
jury ; and, to confess the truth, my Lords, 
I am one of those who think that the change 
was much for the worse which was made 
by our Norman kings, when they separated 
the ecclesiastical from the secular jurisdic- 
tion. My Lords, the change was much 
for the worse : But I beseech your Lord- 
ships to remember that it is now seven 
hundred years old. We are got to such a 
distance from the period when the change 
took place, that the present practice has 
acquired the authority of a venerable pre- 
scription ; and the attempt to bring things 
back to their former state might not be 
very politic. My Lords, instead of trou- 
bling your Lordships with any arguments 



26 



of my own upon that point, I will beg your 
permission to give you the opinion of the 
great Judge Blackstone, in his own words. 
(Here the Bishop read from his notes a 
paragraph from Judge Blackstone's Com- 
mentaries, to this effect : " It must be ac- 
knowledged, to the honour of the spiritual 
courts, that though they continue to this 
day to decide many questions which are 
properly of temporal cognizance, yet jus- 
tice in general is so ably and impartially 
administered in those tribunals, especially 
of the superior kind, and the boundaries 
of their power are now so well known and 
established, that no material inconvenience 
at present arises from this jurisdiction still 
continuing in the ancient channel ; and, 
should an alteration be attempted, great 
confusion would probably arise, in over- 
turning long-established forms, and new- 
modelling a course of proceedings that has 



27 



now prevailed for seven centuries." — Com- 
mentaries, book iii. cap. 7.) 

" My Lords, these were the sentiments of 
Judsre Blackstc-ne : The noble earl's are dif- 
ferent. My Lords, the noble earl spoke with 
high disapprobation of the canons by which 
our spiritual courts are directed : He told 
your Lordships the}' w r ere an invention of 
the same age with the absurd childish sta- 
tutes against witchcraft. My Lords, in 
that point of history the noble earl was not 
quite accurate ; for though it be true that 
the canons which we now use were set forth 
in the reign of King James the First, not 
one of them, as far as my recollection goes, 
was an original fabrication of that age. My 
Lords, the canons of 1603 are a compila- 
tion from the canons of all former ages, — 
a selection of such rides as seemed suited 
to our civil government and to the consti- 
tution of a Protestant Episcopal church. 



28 



The noble earl, in disparagement of these 
canons, produced the third as a specimen 
of the folly and mischief which they con- 
tain : He told your Lordships that this 
third canon breathes such a spirit of ambi- 
tion and priestly lust of power as is not to 
be borne. Now, my Lords, the truth is, 
that the scope of this canon is just the re- 
verse of what the noble earl supposes it to 
be : The scope of this canon is not to sup- 
port church power, but to moderate church 
power, by maintaining the supremacy of 
the secular magistrate. The canon says — 
" Whoever shall hereafter affirm that the 
church of England by lav/ established un- 
der the King's Majesty is not a true apos- 
tolical church, teaching and maintaining 
the doctrine of the apostles, let him be ex- 
communicated ipso facto" &c. Observe, 
my Lords, how the church of England is 
described, — " the church by law established 



29 



under the King's Majesty." When we se- 
parated from the church of Rome, the Pa- 
pists were perpetually insulting us, as no 
church, because by making the King the 
head of the church we had given the su- 
premacy to a layman. The canon meets this 
insult : It affirms that the church of Eng- 
land is a true apostolical church, notwith- 
standing that she have a layman for her 
head ; and it pronounces every one ex- 
communicate who shall dare to deny this. 
My Lords, the impugners of the King's Ma- 
jesty's supremacy, not the enemies of extra- 
vagant church power, are the persons whom 
this canon anathematizes. My Lords, I 
mention this only as an instance how much 
the noble earl has seen things by a false 
light in this subject. 

" My Lords, before I sit down, I must 
beg leave to take notice of one thing which 
fell from the noble earl, as it appears to me 



so 



of a most dangerous tendency. The noble 
earl took occasion to say that the canons 
are not binding even oil the clergy. It has 
long been a maxim (to be understood how- 
ever with many exceptions and restric- 
tions), that they are not generally binding 
on the laity ; but the noble earl is of opi- 
nion they are of no force even against the 
clergy. My Lords, the noble earl seemed 
to found this opinion upon some statute, 
which, as he interprets it, amounts to a re- 
peal of all canons universally. My Lords, 
I guess that the statute that the noble earl 
had in contemplation was the 13th of 
Charles II. cap. 12. (Here the Bishop 
went into a minute discussion upon this 
statute ; many parts of which he read at 
large from his written notes. He said that 
the design of this statute was to explain an 
act of the 17th of the former King, which 
had been passed to repeal an act of the 1st 



SI 



of Elizabeth, concerning the commission- 
ers for causes ecclesiastical : A doubt had 
arisen on the construction of this statute 
of repeal, whether it had not taken away 
all ordinary power of coercion and pro- 
ceeding in causes ecclesiastical : This 
doubt gave occasion to the act of the 13th 
of Charles II. to explain : The explanation 
in brief was this, that nothing of the ordi- 
nary jurisdiction was taken away by Charles 
the First's statute of repeal : But, that a 
contrary doubt might not arise upon the 
construction of this act of explanation, — 
that it might not be understood to give 
new powers to the ecclesiastical judges, but 
simply to restore the old, — a proviso is 
added at the end, that nothing in this act 
contained shall be construed " to extend 
to give any archbishop, bishop, &c. any 
power or authority to exercise, execute, &c. 
which they might not by law have done 



32 



before the year of our Lord 1639 ; nor to 
abridge or diminish the King's Majesty's 
supremacy; nor to confirm the canons made 
in the year 1640 ; nor any other ecclesias- 
tical laws or canons not formerly confirm- 
ed, allowed, or enacted by Parliament, or 
by the established laws of the land as they 
stood in the year 1639.") 

" My Lords, I imagine that it is upon 
this proviso of the 13th Charles II. cap. 12. 
that his lordship builds his new doctrine 
that the canons of 1603 are totally repealed. 
But, my Lords, this proviso goes to no such 
effect : It repeals nothing ; it only confirms 
nothing ; its effect is merely negative : It is 
studiously so worded, as neither to give the 
ecclesiastical canons any authority which 
they had not, nor to deprive them of any 
which they had, by the statute or the com- . 
mon law as it stood in the year 1639. Yet 
this proviso is, as I guess, — his lordship will 



33 



correct me if I am wrong, — this proviso, 
as I guess, is the foundation of his lord- 
ship's singular opinion. (Here the Bi- 
shop paused, and Earl Stanhope shook his 
head.) My Lords, the noble earl seems 
to tell me I am wrong : Why then, my 
Lords, I am totally at a loss to conjecture 
on what foundation the noble earl'? opinion 
can possibly stand. My Lords, if it has 
no foundation, it is unnecessary for me to 
go about to confute it ; but, as I am appre- 
hensive that the notion may be very mis- 
chievous, if it should go abroad into the 
world clothed with the authority of his 
Lordship's name, I must observe, that the 
obligation of an oath lies upon the con- 
science of every clergyman to submit to 
the canons whenever his diocesan may think 
proper to enforce them. 

" My Lords, I have too long engaged 
your Lordships' attention. My objection 

c 



34 



to the bill upon the table is— the generality 
of its operation ; and, for that reason, I 
a^ree with the right reverend prelates who 
have gone before me, that the House ought 
to proceed no farther with it." 



The bill was thrown out. 



UPON THE SECOND READING OF THE BILL FOR 
THE RELIEF OF ROMAN CATHOLICS, UNDER 
CERTAIN CONDITIONS ; 



May 31, 1791. 



On the 21st of February 1791, Mr Mit- 
ford moved, in the House of Commons, 
for a Committee of the whole House, to 
enable him to bring in a bill " to relieve, 
upon conditions and under certain restric- 
tions, persons called Protesting Catholic 
Dissenters, from certain penalties and dis- 
abilities to which Papists or persons pro- 
fessing the Popish religion are by law sub- 
ject." After the bill had been brought in, 
and passed the House of Commons, upon 
the second reading of it in the House of 



36 



Lords, on the 31st of May, a debate com- 
menced on the propriety of several clauses, 
which were afterwards amended in a com- 
mittee. The Bench of Bishops took a dis- 
tinguished and honourable part in this de- 
bate : Among them, the Bishop of St Da- 
vid's rose, and spoke to the following ef- 
fect. 



" MY LORDS, 

" With great charity for the Ro- 
man Catholics, with a perfect abhorrence of 
the penal laws, I have my doubts whether 
the bill for their relief that has been sent 
up to us from the Lower House comes in 
a shape fit to be sent to a committee. My 
Lords, it is not my intention to make any 
express motion to obstruct the commit- 
ment of it, if I should perceive that mea- 
sure to be the sense and inclination of the 



37 



House ; but I have my doubts, which I 
think it my duty to submit to your Lord- 
ships' consideration. 

" Fixed, my Lords, as I am in the per- 
suasion that religion is the only solid foun- 
dation of civil society, and by consequence 
that an establishment of religion is an es- 
sential branch of every well-constructed po- 
lity, I am equally fixed in another prin- 
ciple, that it is a duty which the great law 
of Christian charity imposes on the Chris- 
tian magistrate, to tolerate Christians of 
every denomination separated from the esta- 
blished church by conscientious scruples ; 
with the exception of such sects only, if 
any such there be, which hold principles so 
subversive of civil government in general, 
or so hostile to the particular constitution 
under which they live, as to render the ex- 
termination of such sects an object of just 
policy. My Lords, I have no scruple to 



38 



say, that the opinions which separate the 
Roman Catholics of the present day from 
the communion of the church of England 
are not of that dangerous complexion. 
Times, my Lords, it is too well knowm, 
have been, when the towering ambition of 
the Roman clergy, and the tame supersti- 
tion of the people, rendered the hierarchy 
the rival of the civil government — the triple 
mitre the terror of the crown, in every state 
in Christendom. The Reformation in this 
country (as it took its rise not in any contro- 
versies upon speculative doctrines, but in a 
high-spirited monarch's manly renunciation 
of the Pope's usurped authority — in the 
claim of the original absolute exemption of 
the church, no less than of the state of 
this kingdom, from all subordination to the 
See of Rome) excited a spirit of intrigue 
among the adherents of the Papacy against 
the internal government, which rendered 



39 



every Roman Catholic, in proportion as he 
was conscientiously attached to the inte- 
rests of his church, a disaffected or at the 
best a suspected subject. The Revolution 
widened the breach, by the natural attach- 
ment of the sect to the abdicated family, 
which had always favoured it. Happily for 
this country, and for the peace of mankind, 
those times are past. My Lords, it is now 
universally understood, that the extrava- 
gant claims of the church to a paramount 
authority over the state, in secular matters, 
stand confuted by the very first principle 
of the original charter of her institution — 
by the early edict of her divine and holy 
founder, " that his kingdom is not of this 
world." The ambition of the Roman Pon- 
tiff, by the reduction of his power and his 
fortunes, is become contemptible and ridi- 
culous in the eyes of his own party ; and 
the extinction of the Stuart family leaves 



40 



the Roman Catholics of this country no 
choice but the alternative of continuing 
in the condition of aliens in their native 
land, or of bringing themselves under 
the protection of her laws, by peaceable 
submission and loyal attachment to the 
existing Government. My Lords, in these 
circumstances, — in this state of opinions, 
in this reduced condition of the Pope's 
importance in the political world, in the 
actual state of the interests of the Roman 
Catholics of this country, — I persuade 
myself that the long-wished-for season for 
the abolition of the penal laws is come. 
Emancipated from the prejudices which 
once carried them away, the Roman Ca- 
tholics are led by the genuine principles 
of their religion to inoffensive conduct, to 
dutiful submission and cordial loyalty. My 
Lords, the Roman Catholics better under- 
stand than the thing seems to be under- 



41 



stood by many of those who call them- 
selves our Protestant brethren, in what 
plain characters the injunction of the un- 
reserved submission of the individual to the 
government under which he is born is writ- 
ten in the divine law of the gospel. 

" My Lords, with all this charity for 
Roman Catholics, with these sentiments 
of the inexpediency of the penal laws, I 
must still disapprove of the bill which is 
now offered for a second reading. Your 
Lordships must perceive, that, consistently 
with the sentiments which I avow, I can- 
not quarrel with the bill for the relief it 
gives : No, my Lords, — the noble lord * 
who moved the second reading has himself 
opened the grounds of my objections. My 
Lords, I object to the bill that it is insuf- 
ficient to its own purpose; my Lords, I 



* Lord Rawdon, now Lord Moira. 



42 



quarrel with the bill for the partiality of its 
operation. 

" With the indulgence of your Lordships, 
I will endeavour to explain from what cir- 
cumstances in the fabric of the bill this de- 
fect arises ; I will set forth the importance 
of the objection ; and then I will trouble 
your Lordships with the reasons of my ap- 
prehension that this objection is not likely 
to be done away by any amendments which 
we can £ive the bill in the committee. 

" My Lords, this bill is to relieve Roman 
Catholics from the penal law3, under the con- 
dition that they take an oath of allegiance, 
abjuration, and declaration ; the terms of 
which oath the bill prescribes* The bill 
therefore will relieve such Roman Catho- 
lics as take this oath, and none else. Now, 
my Lords, it is, I believe, a well-known 
fact, that a very great number — I believe I 
should be correct if I were to say a very 



43 



great majority of the Roman Catholics 
scruple the terms in which this oath is un- 
fortunately drawn, and declare they cannot 
bring themselves to take it. With the per- 
mission of the House, I will enter a little 
into the detail of their objections. Not that 
I mean to go at present into a discussion 
upon all the imperfections of the oath : I 
concur in every one of the objections made 
by the most reverend Metropolitan * ; but 
I shall not touch upon these objections, 
because they have been ably stated, and 
because they are not to the purpose of my 
argument: It is my point to state the ob- 
jections of scrupulous Roman Catholics. 

" My Lords, the majority of the Roman 
Catholics who scruple this oath are not Pa- 
pists in the opprobrious sense of the word, 
i — they are not the Pope's courtiers, more 



* Archbishop Moore. 



44 



than the gentlemen of the Roman Catho- 
lic Committee, who are ready to accept the 
oath. My Lords, the more scrupulous Ro- 
man Catholics, who object to the terms of 
this oath, are ready to swear allegiance to 
the King, — they are ready to abjure the 
Pretender, — to renounce the Pope's autho- 
rity in civil and temporal matters, — they 
are ready to renounce the doctrine that 
faith is not to be kept with heretics, and 
that persons may be murdered under the 
pretence that they are heretics, as impious 
and unchristian, — -they are ready to re- 
nounce, as impious and unchristian, the 
doctrine that princes excommunicated by 
the See of Rome may be murdered by 
their subjects, — they are ready to renounce 
the doctrine that princes excommunicated 
by the See of Rome may be deposed by 
their subjects ; but to this deposing doc- 
trine they scruple to apply the epithets of 



45 



impious, unchristian, and damnable : My 
Lords, they think that this doctrine is ra- 
ther to be called false than impious — trai- 
torous than unchristian ; they say that the 
language of an oath should not be adorned, 
figured, and amplified, — but plain, simple, 
and precise. But in truth, my Lords, this 
scruple is founded on a tender regard for 
the memory of their progenitors. Some 
two centuries since, this error, however ab- 
surd and malignant, was, like other absurd 
and malignant errors, universal. Yet, my 
Lords, there lived in those times many men 
of distinguished piety and virtue, who ac- 
quiesced in this error as a speculative doc- 
trine, though they never /icted upon it. My 
Lords, the more scrupulous of the Roman 
Catholics think it hard that men of probity 
and virtue, entertaining a speculative error 
sanctioned by its universality, upon which 
they never acted, should, for that error in 



46 



mere speculation, be stigmatized as devoid 
of piety, as no Christians, and as persons 
that died under a sentence of eternal dam- 
nation. And certainly, my Lords, the re* 
probation of this doctrine, under the qualifi- 
cations of impious, unchristian, and dam- 
nable, goes to this effect. My Lords, I be- 
seech you to give a candid attention to this 
scruple, as I am confident your Lordships 
will to every scruple. My Lords, I enter 
into this detail from a desire of impressing 
on your Lordslaps' minds what is very 
strongly impressed on mine, — that the ob- 
jections of these men are not cavils, but 
fair, honest, conscientious scruples. v My 
Lords, this scruple is analagous to that 
which every liberal enlightened man would 
feel if he were called upon to decide upon 
that which has sometimes been decided up- 
on with little ceremony, — -upon the final 
doom of virtuous heathens — of men who, 



47 

with a sense of moral obligation, and with 
sentiments of piety towards the Creator 
of the universe, which might have done no 
discredit to the professors of Christianity, 
nevertheless, from the force of example and 
education, acquiesced in the popular ido- 
latry of their times. My Lords, I believe 
your Lordships all believe that there is no 
name under heaven by which men may be 
saved but the name of Jesus Christ : Ne- 
vertheless, my Lords, I should be very un- 
willing to assert — my Lords, I would re- 
fuse to swear, that it is matter of my belief 
that such men as Socrates, Plato, Tully, 
Seneca, and Marcus Antoninus, who were 
every one of them idolaters, are now suf- 
fering in the place of torment, and are 
doomed to suffer there to all eternity. My 
Lords, upon this point I concur in the sen- 
timents of a great ornament of the Roman 
church, who might have been an ornament 



48 

to the purest church in the most enlighten-* 
ed times. " Ubi nunc anima Marci Tullii 
agat, fortasse non est humani judicii pro- 
nuntiare ; me eerte, non admodum aver- 
sum habituri sint in ferendis caiculis, qui 
sperant ilium apud Superos summa pace 
frui." My Lords, will not your Lordships 
permit the Roman Catholics to have the 
same tenderness for the memory of Bellar- 
mine and Erasmus which your Lordships 
would feel for that of virtuous heathens ? 

" My Lords, the terms in which the 
Pope's civil authority is renounced are 
matter of scruple to that division of the 
Roman Catholics which I consider as the 
majority. My Lords, they are ready to re- 
nounce the civil authority of the Pope ; but 
they think that the words used in the oath 
go to the denial of the Pope's spiritual au- 
thority, which they cannot conscientiously 
abjure. The terms of the oath, my Lords, 



49 



are these : " I do also, in my conscience, 
declare and solemnly swear, — that no fo- 
reign church, prelate, or priest, or assem- 
bly of priests, or ecclesiastical power what- 
soever, hath, or ought to have, any juris- 
diction or authority whatsoever within 
this realm, that can directly or indirect- 
ly affect or interfere with the indepen- 
dence, sovereignty, laws, constitution, or 
government thereof, or the rights, liber- 
ties, persons, or properties of the people 
of the said realm, or any of them." The 
power therefore abjured, is all ecclesiastical 
power which can directly or indirectly in- 
terfere with the sovereignty, constitution, or 
government — with public or with private 
rights. My Lords, these scrupulous Ca- 
tholics think that this description compre- 
hends the Pope's spiritual authority ; for 
they say, that they must admit that the 
Pope's spiritual authority does, indirectly, 

n 



50 

by inference and implication, interfere with 
civil government and with civil rights. My 
Lords, is it not manifest that the Pope's 
supremacy, indirectly and in speculation, 
interferes with the sovereignty — with the 
King's supremacy as head of the church ? 
My Lords, with the constitution the Pope's 
supremacy indirectly interferes, in a part 
which I believe your Lordships hold in 
some regard. My Lords, it is a conse- 
quence from the doctrine of the Pope's 
supremacy, that no consecrations and ordi- 
nations are valid but what emanate from 
the authority of the See of Rome. If this 
be the case, my Lords, the bishops of the 
church of England are no bishops : If we 
are no bishops, we have no right to sit in 
this assembly with your Lordships ; I have 
no right to be now holding this argument 
before your Lordships. My Lords, is not 
this an interference — indirectly, I grant — 



51 



but indirectly is it not an interference with 
the constitution ? My Lords, if we are no 
bishops, it is a farther consequence, that no 
man is made a priest by virtue of our or- 
dinations : No priest of ours, therefore, has 
any just right to any temporalities that he 
may hold of such a nature as to attach ex- 
clusively to the priestly character. My 
Lords, is not this an interference with the 
rights of the subject? My Lords, these 
are striking instances that occur at the mo- 
ment ; many other instances might be 
found, in which the Pope's spiritual supre- 
macy unquestionably interferes, indirectly, 
with civil authority and civil rights : And 
the most that can be expected of conscien- 
tious Roman Catholics is, not that they 
should renounce all authority carrying this 
interference, for that were to renounce the 
Pope as their spiritual head ; but that they 
should bind themselves to Government, 



52 



that they will never act upon these prin- 
ciples, which in theory they cannot re- 
nounce, — that whatever they may think, as 
a matter of opinion, about the Pope's su- 
premacy, they will never in fact make an at- 
tack, or commit any act of hostility, against 
the constitution and the government in ei- 
ther branch ; but on the contrary, will de- 
fend it. And these engagements, my Lords, 
those Roman Catholics who scruple this 
oath are ready and desirous to give in the 
most explicit and unequivocal terms. They 
say, that they think themselves " bound 
by an oath which they have already taken, 
and that they are ready to strengthen the 
obligation by a new oath, to defend to the 
utmost of their power the civil and eccle- 
siastical establishment of the country, even 
though all the Catholic powers in Europe, 
with the Pope himself at their head, were 
to levy war against the King for the ex- 



53 



press purpose of establishing the Romaii 
Catholic religion." My Lords, there are 
other points in this oath, which Roman 
Catholics, I think, must scruple : I believe 
the gentlemen of the Catholic Committee, 
who declare themselves ready to take this 
oath, will see some difficulty in particular 
parts of it, when they consider the full im- 
port of certain terms. But, my Lords, I 
shall go no farther at present in this de- 
tail ; I will only say, in general, that there 
are parts of the oath which I myself would 
refuse to take. 

" My Lords, I must observe, that the gen- 
tlemen of the Catholic Committee, and the 
party that acts with them, who scruple no 
part of this oath, declare that they, equally 
with the scrupulous party, maintain the 
Pope's spiritual supremacy ; — they are 
shocked that the denial of it should be 
imputed to them. Your Lordships there- 



54 



fore perceive, that the two parties are per- 
fectly equal, in the degree of affection, or 
disaffection, take it which way you will, that 
they bear to the government of the country : 
Therefore I cannot see upon what principle 
a relief which is granted to the one should 
be denied to the other. 

" It may be said, this relief is a matter 
not of right, but of mere grace and fa- 
vour ; and that the person who confers 
a favour may at his own will and pleasure 
prescribe the conditions on which he will 
bestow it : But, my Lords, the favours 
of a government are surely to be dis- 
pensed by some rule of distribution ; and 
that rule ought to be an equal one ; my 
Lords, it ought not to be a rule of ar- 
bitrary election and reprobation, making 
a distinction of persons where there is no 
difference of character in the degree of 
civil merit, 



55 



" My Lords, I have heard it said, not in 
this House, but out of doors it is a maxim 
in common circulation, that the Legislature 
has nothing to do with the disputes of these 
people among themselves, — that it may be 
rather an object of good policy to promote 
and increase their divisions, as it may be a 
means of weakening the strength of the 
party. 

" My Lords, the maxim Divide et im- 
pera, if it be ever wise, is wise only in 
despotical governments. My Lords, if it 
be wise in such governments, it is because 
such governments are radically unjust, — 
the relation of the governor and the go- 
verned to each other being that of ene- 
mies ; but, in governments such as this 
under which we have the happiness to live, 
it is a wicked maxim. In our constitution, 
the promoting* of the happiness of the go- 
verned is not only the duty but it is the 



56 



actual object of government, and the 
aim of all its operations and of all its mea- 
sures. In such a government, union and 
harmony among citizens of all descriptions 
is to be desired ; and it should be the en- 
deavour of the government to promote it, 
as the means of binding the love and af- 
fections of all to the constitution. 

" But, my Lords, admitting for a mo- 
ment that we have nothing to do with the 
disputes of these people among themselves, 
yet your Lordships surely have to do with 
the justice and equity of your own pro- 
ceedings. Now, consider my Lords, up- 
on what principle were the penal laws 
against the Roman Catholics first intro- 
duced ? — Certainly upon this principle, 
that the Roman Catholics in general were 
di&aiTected subjects. Upon what principle 
would the Legislature now relieve any Ro- 
man Catholics from those laws ? — Certainly, 



57 



my Lords, upon this principle, that the Le- 
gislature acquits those to whom it extends 
the relief of the crime and suspicion of dis- 
affection. Upon what principle is the re- 
lief which is extended to some withheld 
from others ? — Certainly upon no just prin- 
ciple but this, that those others still lie, in 
the eye of the Legislature, under a suspi- 
cion of disaffection. Thus, my Lords, by 
passing a law which will give only a partial 
relief, you will impress a stigma of disaffec- 
tion upon the party not relieved ; which, 
in my judgment, if there be no ground for 
suspecting them, would be the height of 
cruelty and injustice. 

" But, my Lords, give me leave to say, 
that though your Lordships would indeed 
have nothing to do with any disputes 
among the Roman Catholics upon contro- 
verted points of their own divinity, the 
matter and the state of the present dispute 



58 



are such, that your Lordships have much 
to do with it in forming a judgment upon the 
present bill. The matter in dispute is the 
propriety of the oath as it stands in this 
bill ; which oath the one party is ready to 
accept, — the other reprobates. The dis- 
pute began in terms of mutual respect and 
great moderation ; but as the dispute went 
on, both sides, as is the case in all disputes, 
grew warmer : Both sides have now lost all 
temper ; and the quarrel, a religious quar- 
rel, my Lords, is raging. The scrupulous 
Catholics speak of the writings on the other 
side as schismatical, scandalous, and in- 
flammatory : The Catholic Committee 
charge the former with inculcating princi- 
ples hostile to society and government, 
and to the constitution and law r s of the Bri- 
tish. My Lords, these reproaches are, I 
think, unmerited on either side ; but they 
are for that reason the stronger symptoms 



59 



of intemperate heat on both sides. My 
Lords, this bill, should it pass into a law, 
will not mitigate the quarrel, but inflame it ; 
and as it reenacts the penal laws against all 
those who from their scruples about the 
oath cannot bring themselves within the 
benefit of it, the Roman Catholics who will 
be relieved by this bill will be impowered 
to inforce those laws against their more 
scrupulous brethren, with whom they are 
quarrelling. My Lords, the history of the 
church too clearly proves, that men whose 
minds are inflamed with religious contro- 
versy are not to be trusted with such wea- 
pons. My Lords, when I look at the names 
of the gentlemen who compose the Catho- 
lic Committee, — men of high birth, of dis- 
tinguished probity and honour, — I cannot 
for a moment suppose that any of them 
would pursue the quarrel with their adver- 
saries in that base manner : But, my Lords, 



60 

the leaders of a party cannot always com- 
mand the passions of their followers ; and 
your Lordships will have no security that 
this may not be done, but the liberality 
and honour of the individuals : And is it 
wise or just, my Lords, to put any inno- 
cent man in the power of his enemy, rely- 
ing only on the good disposition of that 
enemy to restrain him from the abuse of 
that power which you put into his hands ? 
My Lords, if the party relieved by this 
bill should take the advantage which the 
law will give them against the other party, 
a horrible persecution will arise. My Lords, 
I shudder at the scene of terror and confu- 
sion which my imagination sets before me, 
when, under the operation of this partial 
law, should it unfortunately receive your 
Lordships' sanction, miscreants of base in- 
formers may be enriched with the fortunes, 
our gaols may be crowded with the persons, 



61 



and our streets may stream with the blood, 
of conscientious men and of good subjects ! 
And of all this cruelty, my Lords, if it 
should take place, the laws of the country 
will get the credit. 

" My Lords, I am aware that it may seem 
to your Lordships that there is an easy an- 
swer to all this, — Send the bill to a com- 
mittee, and amend the oath. My Lords, 
there is the difficulty ; I fear that we are 
not competent to make such amendments 
in the oath as may obviate the mischief. 
My Lords, look at the state of the contro- 
versy among the Roman Catholics. Three 
of the four Roman Catholic bishops who 
call themselves the apostolical vicars for the 
four districts of this country — three out of 
these four have promulgated an encyclical 
letter, in which they reprobate the oath as 
it stands in the present bill ; and they go 
farther, — they advance this principle, that a 



62 



conscientious Catholic ought not to take any 
oath declaratory of any opinion upon doc- 
trinal points till it has received the appro- 
bation of the ecclesiastical superiors. The 
gentlemen of the Catholic Committee ex- 
claim against this as an extravagant stretch 
of authority; — I confess, my Lords, I see no 
extravagance in it ; I believe, were I a Ro- 
man Catholic, I should think it my duty to 
submit to it; — but the Catholic Committee 
are indignant under this usurpation of au- 
thority, as they think it, of the apostolical 
vicars ; and a paper has appeared, signed by 
the gentlemen of the Committee, which I 
know not very well what to call : My Lords, 
it looks something like an appeal to the 
Pope ; and yet I can hardly suppose that 
an appeal to him has been actually made, 
or that this is a copy of a paper sent as a 
formal appeal to Rome. Rut the Commit- 
tee say—" We appeal to all the Catholic 



63 



churches in the universe, and especially to 
the first of all Catholic churches, the Apos- 
tolical See, rightly informed." My Lords, 
if this is an appeal to the See of Rome, or 
if it be a notice of an intended appeal,- — 
and, my Lords, it must be something, — it 
should seem that the Legislature cannot 
stir a step farther : For it would be per- 
fectly nugatory to pass a law to give relief 
upon the condition of an oath, when the 
persons to whom the relief is offered are 
divided into two parties, one of which say 
" We cannot take this oath," — the other 
say, " We must go to Rome, and ask the 
Pope, whether, under the circumstance of 
the interdict of the ecclesiastical superiors, 
we may take the oath or no." And, my 
Lords, suppose you amend the oath, what 
assurance can your Lordships have that 
the apostolical vicars will approve the oath 
as amended by your Lordships ? If they 



64 

should not approve it, the more scrupu- 
lous Roman Catholics will not take it. 

" My Lords, the remedy for this seems 
to me to be unique : The remedy would 
be, to find an oath which may be sufficient 
for the security of Government, and which 
the majority of the Roman Catholics have 
already taken, and the apostolical vicars, 
having themselves taken it, must approve. 
Such, my Lords, is the oath which was re- 
quired of the Roman Catholics by the law 
of 1778; and I am very sorry that that oath 
was not adopted in this bill : Rut, from 
what I have heard, I have much doubt 
whether, if we go into committee, we shall 
be unanimous upon a motion for substitut- 
ing that oath instead of the oath that now 
stands in the bill ; and for this reason, my 
Lords, I fear the bill is incurable.* 



* In this apprehension the Bishop had the pleasure to 
find himself mistaken. In the committee of the whole 



65 



a My Lords, I have detained you much 
longer than I thought to have done. It 
only remains that I thank your Lordships 
for the patient attention with which I have 
been honoured ; and that I make it my re- 
quest, that any expressions that may have 
escaped me, in the course of a speech in 
point of language in many parts quite un- 
premeditated, may be candidly interpreted. 
My Lords, what most of all I deprecate, is 
that I may not be suspected of insincerity 
in my professions of an abhorrence of the 
penal laws, — that my objecting to the com- 
mitment of this bill may not be deemed a 
stratagem of mine to get rid of the busi- 



House upon the bill (4th June), the oath, as it stood, was 
upon the Bishop's own motion expunged, and the oath taken 
by the Roman Catholics in Ireland in the year 1774, with ( 
some very slight alterations, substituted. The Irish oath is 
in effect the same with the oath of 1778; and of the two. ys 
drawn with the greater accuracy, 



66 



ness altogether, and disappoint the peti- 
tioners at your Lordships' bar in their just 
expectations of relief. My Lords, I call 
the Great Searcher of hearts to witness, that 
there is no such duplicity, no such malice, 
in my intention. My Lords, if your Lord- 
ships should be moved, by what has been 
said by me, or what may be said with more 
ability by others to the same effect, to re- 
ject this bill, — rather than that the Roman 
Catholics should be finally unrelieved, I 
would pledge myself to your Lordships, to 
the Roman Catholics, and to my country, 
to bring in a bill, early in the next session, 
which should not be pregnant with the 
mischiefs which seem to me the certain 
consequences of this bill. But I should 
hope, that your Lordships would not leave 
a matter of such moment to the discretion 
and abilities of any individual lord ; but 
that your Lordships will think proper to 



67 



name a committee, to revise all the subsist- 
ing laws against the Roman Catholics, and 
to frame a bill for the repeal of such as 
may with safety be repealed. The only 
objection that I can see to such a measure 
is the delay, — for it is much too late in the 
session to begin such a business : But, my 
Lords, in a matter of this magnitude and 
importance, the Legislature should think 
little of the delay of a few months ; nor 
ought the Roman Catholics themselves to 
murmur at a delay which may conduce to 
put the relief they solicit upon a broad and 
permanent basis." 



IN REPLY TO THE LORD CHANCELLOR, UPON 
THE SECOND READING OF THE BILL FOR 
THE RELIEF OF THE SCOTTISH EPISCOPA- 
LIANS; 

May 2, 1792. 



Early in the session of 1792, a bill was 
brought into Parliament, to remove cer- 
tain disabilities, forfeitures, and penalties, 
under which persons frequenting or offi- 
ciating in certain Episcopal chapels and 
meeting-houses in Scotland then laboured. 
The bill was read a second time, in the 
House of Lords, on the 2d of May ; when 
the Lord Chancellor (Thurlow) stated se- 
veral objections against it. To these ob- 
jections the Bishop of St David's replied. 



69 



" MY LORDS, 

" I am happy to perceive, that 
in the sentiments which I have to deliver 
to your Lordships upon the present subject 
of discussion, I shall riot have the misfor- 
tune to differ very widely, in any thing that 
essentially regards the principle of the bill, 
from the noble and learned lord upon the 
woolsack. My Lords, a wide difference 
from him I should call a misfortune ; be- 
cause it would necessarily produce in me a 
degree of mistrust of my own judgment, 
which would considerably abate the satis- 
faction which otherwise I might feel in fol- 
lowing what still might be the firm and full 
conviction of my own mind. Nevertheless, 
my Lords, in any question like this, 'in 
which the interest of religion, the public 
weal, and the credit of the Legislature, 
might be concerned — a question of justice 
and mercy towards a suffering part of the 



10 



family of Christ, — it would ill become me 
to be influenced, in the vote that I should 
give, upon any authority but that of my 
own conviction ; and it might not less mis- 
become me to oppose a high authority by 
a silent vote, without stating to your Lord- 
ships the grounds on which my contrary 
conviction stood. My Lords, the princi- 
ple of this bill has been so clearly stated 
by the noble earl * who moved the second 
reading, and so well illustrated by the 
noble viscount j* who spoke last, that it is 
unnecessary to dwell upon it. The object 
of the bill is to relieve certain dissenters 
from the established church of Scotland, 
well-affected to his present Majesty and 
the Protestant succession, from the penal- 
ties of disaffection imposed by former laws. 
My Lords, the hardship under which they 



* Lord Elgin. 



f Lord Stormontv 



71 



labour consists not in the severity of these 
penalties. Disaffection, in former times, 
was generally among persons of their re- 
ligious persuasion, though not necessarily 
connected with their religion ; and of the 
measures of severity that might be neces- 
sary for those times, the Legislatures of 
those times were the judges. But, my Lords, 
the hardship is, that the present genera- 
tion, being converted from the disaffection 
of their ancestors, and retaining only their 
religious principles, cannot, by any thing 
they can do, by any security that they can 
give for their good conduct and submis- 
sion to Government, secure themselves 
against the penalties of disaffection. As 
cordially attached as any of us to the exist- 
ing government, — praying in their religi- 
ous assemblies for his Majesty King George 
and the Royal Family by name, in the terms 
in which we of the church of England in 



12 



our own liturgy pray for them, and taking 
the oaths that we all take, — still they are 
liable, clergy and laity, to all the penalties 
of the 19th George II. 

" My Lords, the good policy of this bill 
of relief is not at all connected with any 
question about the antiquity of the practice 
of praying for sovereigns. From what fell 
from the noble and learned lord, I think 
there must be some mistake upon thatpoint; 
his lordship must have received some mis- 
information. My Lords, I cannot believe 
that these Episcopalians ever alleged the 
example of the ages before Constantine in 
Justification of their omission in former 
times of praying for the King by name. 
Prayers for sovereigns is one of the very 
oldest parts of Christian worship. These 
Episcopalians must very well know, that 
the precept of praying for kings and all 
that are in authority is three hundred years 



73 



older than Constantine ; and that it was 
the constant practice of the earliest Chris- 
tians to pray even for the princes that per- 
secuted them. My Lords, their omission 
of praying for the King by name was ow- 
ing to their notions about indefeasible 
hereditary right, w r hich would not suffer 
them to renounce the family to which 
their allegiance had once been sworn, nor 
to adopt the principles of the Revolu- 
tion. The omission was not defended by 
any pretended example of antiquity : It 
stood upon no better ground than that of 
gross and avowed disaffection. But, my 
Lords, the example of the ages before Con- 
stantine must have been alleged to a very 
different purpose : It has been alleged by 
these Episcopalians to justify their claims 
to an episcopacy, and to explain what sort 
of episcopacy that is which they claim. 
My Lords, it is not my wish to lead the 



74 



House into the perplexities of that theolo- 
gical discussion : I shall comprise what I 
find necessary to say upon it in very few 
words. 

" My Lords, these Episcopalians make a 
distinction, and it is a just distinction, be- 
tween a purely spiritual and a political epis- 
copacy. A political episcopacy belongs 
to an established church, and has no ex- 
istence out of an establishment. This sort 
of episcopacy was necessarily unknown in 
the world before the time of Constantine. 
But in all the preceding ages, there was 
a pure spiritual episcopacy, — an order of 
men set apart to inspect and manage the 
spiritual affairs of the church, as a society 
in itself, totally unconnected with civil 
government. Now, my Lords, these Scot- 
tish Episcopalians think, that when their 
church was cast off by the state at the 
Revolution, their church, in this discarded 



75 



divided state, reverted to that which had 
been the condition of every church in 
Christendom before the establishment of 
Christianity in the Roman empire by 
Constantine the Great, — that, losing all 
their political capacity, they retained how- 
ever the authority of the pure spiritual 
episcopacy within the church itself ; and 
that is the sort of episcopacy to which 
they now pretend. I, my Lords, as a 
churchman, have some respect for that 
pretension ; but I have no wish to lead the 
House into a discussion about it. The 
merits of the bill rest not on the validity 
of that episcopacy in any sense. In what 
sense the bishops of this church of Scottish 
Episcopalians may be bishops, — whether 
they are bishops in any sense, — is not the 
question : What the validity of their ordi- 
nations may be, is not the question : The 
single question is— Are these Scottish Epis- 



76 



copalians good subjects? and do they hold 
religious principles, in the emphatic lan- 
guage of the noble and learned lord on the 
woolsack, " fit to be tolerated?" — that is 
to say, are they good subjects? and do 
they agree with us in the fundamentals 
of Christianity? — for these are the reli- 
gious principles " fit to be tolerated." If 
they can satisfy us upon these points, the 
Legislature is not at all concerned in the 
question of the spiritual validity of their 
orders. My Lords, consider only how 
we deal with Protestant dissenters here in 
England ; for all that I would wish for 
our Scottish brethren is, that they, as dis- 
senters from the established church of Scot- 
land, should be put upon the same footing 
with the Protestant dissenters from the 
church of England. My Lords, by the to- 
leration-act of the 1st of William and Mary, 
a pastor of a congregation of Protestant dis- 



77 

senters must enter the place and situation 
of his meeting-house ; he must give in his 
own name and place of abode ; he must 
take the oaths to Government ; and he 
must show that he agrees with us in the 
fundamentals of the Christian religion ; 
and by the terms of that statute, which is 
the narrowest of all the present schemes of 
toleration, he must also testify his agree- 
ment with us in the general principles of 
Protestantism. This he does by subscri- 
bing a great many of the Thirty-nine Ar- 
ticles. My Lords, when the dissenting 
minister has complied with these condi- 
tions, he is never asked, — no one has autho- 
rity to ask him, — Sir, how comes it that you 
call yourself a clergyman ? what are your 
orders ? by whom were you ordained ? by 
what ritual ? He has given the security 
which all good subjects give for his loyal- 
ty to Government,- — he professes religious 



78 



principles " fit to be tolerated;" that's 
enough : He is admitted, without farther 
inquiry, to all the benefits of toleration. 
Now, my Lords, here are a set of dissent- 
ers from the established church of Scot- 
land, good subjects, and holding religious 
principles very " fit to be tolerated j" for 
the cause of their dissent from the esta- 
blished church of Scotland is their very 
near agreement with the established church 
of England; and they approach your Lord- 
ships with this modest request, that they 
may not be more hardly de^lt with than 
Protestants of various denominations differ- 
ing more widely from both establishments. 
My Lords, one thing that fell from the 
noble and learned lord on the woolsack 
struck upon my mind very forcibly, — as 
deserving, I mean, a serious consideration. 
His lordship gave it as his opinion, that it 
would be for the credit of Episcopacy in 



79 



Scotland, that their congregations should be 
supplied with ministers (according to the 
intention of the 19th of the late King) or- 
dained by bishops of the English or Irish 
church. The noble and learned lord, if I 
took his argument aright, supposed that 
the statute passed in favour of the Scottish 
Episcopalians in the 10th of Queen Anne 
would bear him out in that opinion. That 
statute made it " free and lawful for all 
those of the Episcopal communion in that 
part of Great Britain called Scotland, to 
meet and assemble for the exercise of di- 
vine worship, to be performed after their 
own manner, by pastors ordained by a Pro- 
testant bishop." The noble and learned 
lord conceives, that under the latitude of 
this expression, a " Protestant bishop" the 
statute meant indeed to tolerate the ejected 
bishops, and the clergy immediately or- 
dained by them, but not to extend the to- 



80 

leration to the succession. My Lords, I 
must take the liberty to differ from the 
noble and learned lord upon the con- 
struction of this statute of Queen Anne. 
I think it was the intention of the statute 
to extend its toleration beyond the ejected 
bishops themselves to the whole succes- 
sion ; for I find, my Lords, that of the 
thirteen bishops of Scotland ejected at the 
Revolution (the dioceses were in all four- 
teen, but it happened that one see was va- 
cant when the Revolution took place; thir- 
teen bishops therefore were ejected ; now 
of these thirteen), seven certainly, probably 
eight, were dead before the 10th of Queen 
Anne; and a ninth was out of the kingdom, 
for he fled with the abdicated King. At 
the time therefore when this act was pass- 
ed, no more than four of the ejected bishops 
were alive, and within the kingdom ; and 
four new consecrations had taken place, 



81 

two in the 4th of Queen Anne, and two 
more in the 8th. At the time therefore 
when this act was passed, the Scottish Epis- 
copacy consisted of an equal number of the 
original bishops and the succession, — four 
of each ; and if it was the intention of the 
act, as the noble and learned lord has ar- 
gued, to confine the toleration to the ejec- 
ted bishops, and exclude the succession, I 
can only say, my Lords, that the framers 
of that statute did their business not quite 
so well as business of that sort was used to 
be done in those times. 

" My Lords, with respect to the interests 
of Episcopacy in Scotland, my opinion is 
unfortunately the very reverse of that of 
the noble and learned lord. The credit 
of Episcopacy will never be advanced by 
the scheme of supplying the Episcopalian 
congregations in Scotland with pastors of 
our ordination ; — and for this reason, my 



82 



Lords, that it would be an imperfect crip- 
pled episcopacy that would be thus upheld 
in Scotland. When a clergyman ordained 
by one of us settles as a pastor of a con- 
gregation in Scotland, he is out of the reach 
of our authority. We have no authority 
there ; we can have no authority there ; the 
Legislature can give us no authority there. 
The attempt to introduce any thing of an 
authorized political episcopacy in Scot- 
land would be a direct infringement of the 
Union. My Lords, as to the notion that 
clergymen should be originally ordained 
by us to the ministry in Scotland, I agree 
with the noble viscount, that the thing 
would be contrarv to all rule and order. 
No bishop who knows what he does or- 
dains without a title ; and a title must be 
a nomination to something certain in the 
diocese of the bishop that ordains. My 
Lords, an appointment to an Episcopal 



83 



congregation in Scotland, is no more a title 
to me, to any bishop of the English bench, 
or any bishop of the Irish bench, than an 
appointment to a church in Mesopotamia. 

" My Lords, with respect to marriages, I 
agree with the noble and learned lord on 
the woolsack, that if this bill should pass, 
the Episcopalians will be authorized to 
marry in their meeting-houses, £>y the 
10th of Queen Anne. But, my Lords, I 
see no inconvenience that can arise from 
this. It will open no door to clandestine 
marriages ; for though they will be autho- 
rized to marry, they will not be authorized 
to marry otherwise than in conformity to 
the regulations of the 10th of Queen Anne, 
— that is to say, they can marry those only 
whose bans have been regularly publish- 
ed, not only in the meeting-houses where 
the marriage is to be solemnized, but in 
the kirks of the parishes where the parties 



84 



are resident. But, my Lords, I go farther j 
I say that this bill will give them no autho- 
rity with respect to marriages, but what 
they do already enjoy and exercise. My 
Lords, the fact is, that these Episcopalians 
do now solemnize marriages every day; 
they solemnize marriages legally; they so- 
lemnize marriages under the express co- 
vert and sanction of the persecuting sta- 
tutes ; and these marriages so solemnized 
by them, — my Lords, in what I am going 
to assert, I stand in the judgment of noble 
lords to whom the laws of Scotland are 
more accurately known than they may be 
supposed to be to me, — but, my Lords, I say 
these marriages solemnized by these Epis- 
copalians are good and valid by the laws of 
Scotland. (Here the Scots lords all gave 
a nod of assent.) And, my Lords, the 
ground of my assertion is this : Our mar- 
riage-act extends not to Scotland ; there- 



85 



fore, by the law and usage of Scotland, it 
is not necessary that any should be present 
at a wedding except the parties themselves 
— that's two, the man who is to act as fa- 
ther and give the bride away — that's three, 
and the clergyman or pretended clergyman 
who is to perform the ceremony — that's 
four. Now, my Lords, by the express 
permission of the 19th of the late King, 
which I call the persecuting statute, four 
persons may assemble for the celebration 
of any religious rite ; for the meeting is 
not illegal, unless five be present, over and 
above the members of the family, if the 
place of assembly be a house inhabited by 
a family, or five, if the place of assembly 
be a house not inhabited by a family. 

" My Lords, these are my notions upon 
the points that have been agitated. I 
shall not go into points that have not 
been brought forward in objection ; though 



86 



I am prepared to meet any other objec- 
tions that might be moved : But I am 
sensible that I have already taken up too 
much of your Lordships' time ; and I fear 
rather irregularly, when in fact no ex- 
press question is before the House. I am 
aware that the bill must receive amend- 
ments in the committee, and perhaps ad- 
ditions ; but the principle of the bill has 
my entire approbation." 



The question was then put, and carried 
without a division, that the bill should be 
read a second time, and go into a commit- 
tee of the whole House on Wednesday 
next. 



UPON THE WELDON ENCLOSURE BILL, 
IN COMMITTEE ; 



May 22, 1792. 



The Duke of Norfolk opened the de- 
bate, opposing the clauses of the bill which 
enacted a commutation for the tithes, on 
the ground of the want of the rector's con- 
sent, which he considered as a sine qua non 
in all bills of this kind; but without enter- 
ing into the merits of this particular case 
in any other part. 

The Bishop of St David's rose when 
the Duke of Norfolk sat down. He de- 
clared his concurrence with the Duke of 
Norfolk in the sentiments expressed by 



88 



his Grace, of the necessity of a clergyman's 
explicit consent to the commutation of his 
tithes, before a bill could be passed enact- 
ing any such commutation. He affirmed, 
that, in the instance of the present bill, 
that principle clearly applied as an insur- 
mountable objection, the rector's consent 
having never been given. He declared, 
that, should the bill in its present shape be 
passed by the Committee, he would, upon 
the ground he had mentioned, most strenu- 
ously concur with the noble duke in an op- 
position to the bill, upon the report or up- 
on the third reading. For that reason, he 
said that he should neither enter into ar- 
gument upon the general principle, nor 
into a discussion of the pretended proof, 
produced by the counsel against the peti- 
tion, of what they called the rector's un- 
filed consent ; that he should reserve him- 
self upon both those points for the open 



89 



debate in the House, of which he was fear- 
ful a necessity would arise ; and there he 
pledged himself to show, that, in all the 
evidence produced before the Committee, 
not a shadow of a proof was to be found, 
of an explicit, direct, unconditional con- 
sent ; that, on the contrary, that very evi- 
dence afforded the strongest proof of a 
steady firm refusal of any such consent, 
from the first meeting of proprietors in 
July 1791 to the present moment. The 
Bishop then went on nearly in the follow- 
ing words. 

" Noble lords who differ from the noble 
duke and me with respect to the general 
principle, that a clergyman shall in no case 
be compelled to accept an allotment of 
land in lieu of tithes without his own free 
consent, will, I am confident, agree with 
me in this, — that where the consent of the 
clergyman has not been given, Parliament 



90 



ought not to give its sanction to the pro- 
posed commutation without the most satis- 
factory proof of the adequacy of the allot- 
ment. Now, my Lords, in this instance I 
must contend that we have no such proof : 
On the contrary, I am persuaded that the 
value of the land alloted is far inferior to 
the value of the tithes in kind. I am sen- 
sible that all that has been given in evi- 
dence as a ground of comparison, seems, 
in the first general view of it, very little ; 
being little more than an account of the 
produce of the rectorial tithes in a single 
year, the year 1790, deposed to by the 
rector's daughter. 

" To this two objections are taken : The 
first, a very material one, if it can be sup- 
ported, — that it is untrue ; that the total 
of that account greatly exceeds the actual 
produce of the tithes, even in that year : 
The second, — that, admitting the account 



91 

to be true — admitting that it states no more 
than the real produce of the rectorial tithes 
of that year, yet the produce of a single 
year cannot be taken to be the average va- 
lue of the Jiving ; and it is assumed that 
the average value, deduced from the pro- 
duce of many successive years, is the thing 
to be compared with the value of the allot- 
ment, in order to form a judgment of its 
adequacy or inadequacy. 

" My Lords, I shall trouble your Lord- 
ships with my sentiments upon both these 
objections. I shall contend, my Lords, 
that the account given in upon the oath of 
the rector's daughter is a true one, — that it 
is a true statement of the produce of the 
rectorial tithes of Weldon in the year 1790. 
Many objections have been made to dif- 
ferent items of the account. I trust that 
I shall be able to set it upon its legs ; and, 
when I have done this, I shall trouble your 



92 



Lordships with my judgment upon the 
famous doctrine of average of which your 
Lordships have heard so much from the 
learned counsel against the petition. It is 
indeed my opinion, that the produce of this 
single year differs little, if at all, from the 
average value. But whether this be so or 
no, I shall venture to maintain a principle 
which I know will at first seem paradoxi- 
cal, — that in making a comparison between 
the value of the tithes in kind and the in- 
tended allotment, your Lordships ought to 
take the value of the tithes upon the pro- 
duce of the year 1790, rather than upon 
the average of that and several preceding 
years : I shall maintain, that the doctrine 
of average does not apply to the question 
of adequacy in this instance. 

" My Lords, upon the first point — -the 
truth of Miss Rave's account of the pro- 
duce of 1790, I shall trouble your Lord- 



93 



ships in very minute detail : Upon the 
question of average I shall be very short 
indeed ; for if the principles which I shall 
advance speak not for themselves when 
they are clearly propounded, I shall not 
think it worth while to spend words in sup- 
port of them. 

" My Lords, the truth of the account 
given in by Miss Raye rests chiefly on her 
own evidence. Witnesses have been pro- 
duced to contradict her evidence in many 
particulars. My Lords, I pledge myself 
to vindicate the truth of her evidence in 
every article in which it has been impeach- 
ed. My Lords, this is a point upon which 
I think myself competent to speak with 
some degree of confidence : I have attend- 
ed the Committee, from the first opening 
of it to the present moment, with the as- 
siduity of a committee-clerk ; I have heard, 
not only heard, but I have minuted the 



94 



whole evidence ; I have not only minuted 
the evidence, but I have studied it; — I 
speak from a distinct connected view of 
the whole, and from an accurate know- 
ledge and recollection of every particle of 
the evidence ; and, my Lords, I undertake 
to defend, not only the veracity of the rec- 
tor's daughter, most unwarrantably im- 
peached by the learned and honourable 
counsel who summed up, but I defend the 
matter of her evidence. My Lords, I dis- 
tinguish, and I am sure your Lordships 
will admit the distinction, between the ve- 
racity of a witness and the truth of parti- 
cular facts averred : A particular fact may 
be false, without any want of veracity in 
the witness. But, my Lords, I assert not 
only the veracity of the witness, but the 
truth of the facts to which she deposed ; 
and I undertake to show, that in every 
particular in which the witnesses called on 



95 



the other side have been said to contradict 
her, there has either been in reality no con- 
tradiction, or the great preponderance of 
credibility is on her side. I shall speak to 
the several particulars of her evidence that 
have been called in question, in the order 
in which they occur in this paper (the 
printed account which the Bishop held in 
his hand). 

" My Lords, the first exception that was 
taken to Miss Raye's evidence, was upon 
the article of the tithe- wheat. She de- 
poses, that the rector's tithe-wheat, in the 
year 1790, amounted to sixty-nine quar- 
ters; and, at fifty shillings per quarter, was 
worth 172/. She told your Lordships that 
it was not all sold ; she said ten quarters 
were consumed in the family, and five 
more were used upon the land for seed: 
The rest was sold at fifty shillings per quar- 
ter upon the average ; and the wheat being 



96 

all nearly of equal quality, she reckoned 
the whole at fifty shillings per quarter ; and 
it was by this reckoning that she made the 
value of the sixty-nine quarters in money 
172/. All this she stated with great dis- 
tinctness, perfect recollection, and with 
great appearance of openness and candour. 
Your Lordships see, that by this account, 
fifteen quarters of the sixty-nine having 
been applied to the rector's own use, either 
in his family or for seed, fifty-four quarters 
must have been sold ; and Miss Raye de- 
posed, that all that was sold was purchased 
by two persons, Johnson and Sharman. 
Johnson was called, and a servant of Shar- 
man' s, who was said to be the keeper of 
his accounts. Sharman himself, I know 
not why, appeared not : But these two 
men, Johnson and Sharman's servant, were 
produced by the counsel against the peti- 
tion, to prove that the quantity of wheat 



97 



bought by those two persons, who bought 
all that was sold, was less than Miss Raye's 
account made it. Now, my Lords, let us 
see how much less these witnesses made it. 
Johnson deposed, that he bought of Mr 
Raye, of wheat of the year 1790, either one 
quarter and a half, or two quarters ; he 
could not positively say which was the true 
quantity, but he was sure what he bought 
did not exceed two quarters. Sharman's 
servant deposed, that his master bought 
forty-nine quarters and three bushels. Now, 
my Lords, to the forty-nine quarters and 
three bushels bought by Sharman, add the 
two quarters bought by Johnson (for since 
Johnson was called to confront Miss Raye, 
I, in defending her testimony, have a right 
to take the largest quantity that his testi- 
mony admits), the sum of what was bought 
by Johnson and Sharman was fifty-one quar- 
ters three bushels. Of the fifty-four quar- 

G 



98 



ters therefore which Miss Raye by her own 
account must have sold, it is proved that 
fifty-one quarters three bushels were bought 
by those very persons to whom she says 
she sold all that was sold. This is proved 
by the evidence of those very witnesses 
who were called to contradict her in this 
part of her story. There remains only a 
difference of two quarters and five bushels ; 
much too inconsiderable, in my judgment, 
to bring suspicion upon her evidence. But 
let me call an important circumstance to 
the recollection of your Lordships,— that 
Sharman's servant spoke not, from any dis- 
tinct memory that he now professes to re- 
tain of the quantity of wheat actually bought 
of Mr Raye by his master in the year 1790 ; 
he spoke from something that he called a 
book of accounts : Rut such a book of ac- 
counts, I believe, was never before pro- 
duced in evidence ! — an old, ragged, dirty, 



99 



mutilated thing, — leaves evidently torn out, 
and what remained hanging in tatters, that 
the wind was afraid to blow upon it ! My 
Lords, though in the existing remains of 
this book we find only forty-nine quarters 
three bushels of wheat bought of Mr Raye 
by Sharman, is it not probable that the 
parts now lost, had the book been entire, 
would have given an account of so much 
more as would have made up the deficien- 
cy ? My Lords, I cannot allow that such 
evidence as this affords any ground to tax 
the deposition of the rector's daughter. 

" But, my Lords, it was argued by the 
learned counsel who summed up the evi- 
dence, that sixty-nine quarters of wheat 
was a much larger quantity than the wheat- 
field of Weldon could yield in tithe to the 
rector in the year 1790, the rector's tithe 
being only a moiety of the whole. This 
conclusion the learned counsel drew from 



100 



the number of acres cropped with wheat 
in that year, and the average crop per acre, 
as stated by his own witnesses, — who made 
the average crop so little as tw r enty bushels 
per acre, or certainly not more than three 
quarters. The number of acres cropped 
with wheat were put at three hundred and 
twenty-two; which I suppose might be near- 
ly the number ; but for the average crop, 
my Lords, we have nothing but the evi- 
dence of a Mr Arnsby, — a coal-merchant, 
my Lords, a woolstapler, a maltster, every 
thing but a farmer. This man presumed 
to depose to the average crop of the wheat- 
field from the crop upon his own part of 
it ; and his own part of it, by his own con- 
fession, was but a very few acres. From 
the produce of very few acres, perhaps 
not more than five or six, he takes upon 
him to swear to the average crop of three 
hundred and twenty-two acres. My Lords, 



101 



does such evidence deserve attention ? My 
Lords, I am myself no farmer, but I have 
conversed with noble lords who have much 
knowledge of such subjects ; and they as- 
sure me that the average crop of the wheat- 
field of Weldon might, in a good year,* 
be fairly supposed to amount to four and 
a half quarters per acre : f And in that 
case, sixty-nine quarters is no such pro- 
digious quantity for the moiety of the 
tithe. 

" My Lords, the learned and honourable 
counsel who raised this objection from the 



* Even Arnsby allowed that the year 1790 was a good 
year : For, being asked whether the average produce of the 
wheat-field had been increasing since the year 1780, he 
answered " Not till the last two years;" and being asked 
again, to what that increase of the last two years was 
owing, he answered " To the season." 

f James Walker deposed, that in the year 1791, the ave- 
rage crop of the wheat-field of Weldon was four and a half 
quarters upon the statute acre. 



102 

quantity, took the objection at first, as I 
thought, with great fairness and candour. 
I was sorry that this fairness and candour 
were lost sight of in the progress of his ar- 
gument. My Lords, he said that he did 
not tax Miss Raye with any intention to 
impose upon the Committee ; but he belie- 
ved she had made this mistake, — that she 
had not distinguished between the tithe- 
wheat and the wheat which grew upon the 
rector's own glebe ; and that the sixty- 
nine quarters to which she had deposed 
was really the sum total of the two parcels 
— the tithe-wheat and the wheat from 
the glebe. And having got an answer 
from one of his own witnesses about the 
acres of wheat in the rector's glebe, he 
amused your Lordships with a very pretty 
calculation, assuming the number of acres 
in the wheat-field to have been exactly three 
hundred and twenty-two, — assuming the 



103 



average crop to have been exactly three 
quarters per acre, — assuming the acres in 
the glebe to have been precisely what one 
of his own witnesses made them,— and as- 
suming farther, that the crop of wheat up- 
on these acres in the glebe was neither 
more nor less than three quarters per acre. 
From a calculation formed upon all these 
assumptions, the learned and honourable 
counsel brought out this conclusion, — - 
namely, that the glebe-wheat and the tither 
wheat, taken together, made exactly, to a 
single grain, my Lords, the quantity of 
sixty-nine quarters, which Miss Raye had 
stated as the amount of the tithe-wheat 
alone. My Lords, I have been myself too 
much conversant with calculation not to 
know the extreme futility of such calcula- 
tions as these. The only circumstance 
that gives them effect upon the mind, is 
the precise agreement of thie result with 



104 



the conclusion that the computer before- 
hand desired to bring out ; and this pre- 
cision is itself a circumstance to be mis- 
trusted : It has no weight, unless you sup- 
pose an accuracy in the data of calculation 
which in the nature of things cannot be- 
long to them : In short, it is a mere trick 
which the computer puts upon himself ; he 
assumes data fitted to the conclusion which 
he means to bring out, and then he triumphs 
in the agreement of the result with his own 
wishes. My Lords, give me leave to make 
such alterations in the data of this calcula- 
tion as shall suit my purpose, and shall by 
no means seem improbable, and I will pre- 
sently bring out a conclusion as much in 
favour of Miss Raye's evidence as the 
learned counsel's was against it. But in 
good truth, my Lords, such calculations 
may pass very well as specimens of a 
young lawyer's scientific accomplishments, 



105 



but considered as arguments, they are con- 
temptible. 

" But, my Lords, Miss Raye disclaims all 
benefit from the very fair hypothesis that 
the learned counsel set up to save her ve- 
racity while he impeached her fact. My 
Lords, she has said most positively, and 
upon the most distinct and perfect recol- 
lection, that the tithe-wheat and the glebe- 
wheat were not mixed ; they were carefully 
kept separate. She allows that they were 
put together (some of the tithe-wheat at 
least was put with the glebe-wheat) in the 
same rick or stack; but a separation was 
made between them by a bed of rushes, 
damaged hay, and damaged oats. And 
now, my Lords, it is that I feel myself 
plunged in solicitude and anxiety; for 
now, my Lords, we are come to the great 
question of character, upon which I shall 
not be ashamed to confess that my feelings 



106 



are indeed acute. My Lords, this story of 
the rushes either is true, or it is an inven- 
tion : Of the distinction between veracity 
and fact, we can in this instance take no 
advantage : Either this story is true, or 
this poor young woman, at the hazard of 
her reputation, at the peril of her soul, 
has committed a crime of which I who 
believe her innocent will not pronounce 
the name ! 

" My Lords, I take courage when I look 
at the evidence which was brought to con- 
tradict her. It consists of the depositions 
of three witnesses. The first was Thomas 
Pendilow, a labourer, who worked as a 
harvest-man with Mr Raye in the year 
1790, and was one of three labourers who 
made the wheat-stack. Observe, my Lords, 
he was, by his own confession, only one 
of three; and the other two (James Mar- 
low, and a third, whose name this wit- 



107 



ness could not recollect) were not called. 
My Lords, this man had no recollection of 
making any separation in the stack by a 
bed of rushes, damaged hay, or damaged 
oats : But your Lordships, I am sure, will 
recollect that he could not say positively 
that he did not make or assist in making 
such a separation : He had no recollection 
of the thing ; he had no recollection of the 
negative ; his evidence was perfectly neu- 
tral and indifferent ; he could not posi- 
tively remember that he did, — he could 
not positively remember that he did not : 
My Lords, he was the very Ignaro of the 
" Fairy Queen," — 

" He could not tell, — ne ever other answer made."* 

And yet, my Lords, I was very much struck 
with the style of this man's evidence. My 



* Fairy Queen, canto viii. stanza 32. 



108 



Lords, I cannot suppose — I do not mean 
to insinuate — that he had been instructed; 
but I own I was surprised to find a man 
in his appearance such an arrant clown so 
great a master of the style of deposition. 
He never wandered in his answers beyond 
the precise limits of the question ; he never 
laid himself open to cross-examination, 
by answering to more than was asked of 
him : It was — it was not, — this was his style 
of answering; except that whenever we 
touched upon the rushes, he either affec- 
ted perfect ignorance, or if he ventured to 
give any thing like any answer, he took 
care to make it wholly insignificant, by 
guarding it with some saving-clause about 
the best of his knowledge or the best of 
his recollection. I disliked and I suspec- 
ted these reservations, conceiving that me- 
mory must serve him one way or other up- 
on a fact of this kind : And the question 



109 



being put to him in various ways, he was 
at last reduced to the necessity of these 
answers. 

" Question, In making the stack, do you 
remember using any rushes, or damaged 
oats, or damaged hay ? — Answer, None, to 
the best of my knowledge. 

" Question, Do you recollect seeing any 
or not ? — Answer, I do not recollect. 

" Question, Can you swear, that in ma- 
king of the stack you did not use rushes, 
damaged oats, or bad hay ? — Answer, I am 
not positive that I did not. 

" And again, 

" Question, Can you speak positively 
whether there was no rushes, damaged oats, 
or bad hay, made use of in the stack? — 
Answer, I do not remember there was any. 

" Question (by myself), Can you swear 
there was not any ? — Answer, I am not po- 
sitive there was not any. 



no 



" My Lords, I must confess, that it ap- 
peared to me very extraordinary, that of 
three men who worked together all day 
upon the stack (for so this very Thomas 
Pendilow deposed), who must have been all 
equally competent to depose to the fact of 
the rushes, one only should be called, 
whose memory upon it was made up of 
negations. He was brought to contra- 
dict Miss Raye ; and the amount of the 
contradiction that he gave her was this, 
that he could say nothing positively one 
way or the other upon the fact in question. 
My Lords, this testimony is not a feather 
in the scale ; it is a mere nothing. 

" Another witness was John Ballard, a la- 
bourer, who had taken down the stack, and 
moved the wheat into the barn. This bu- 
siness he said he did by himself, without the 
help of any other. He indeed confessed no 
want of memory ; he spoke without hesita- 



Ill 



tion or reserve : He swore pretty roundly, 
that in taking down the stack, he met with 
no rushes, damaged hay, or damaged oats, 
— nothing but pure wheat. Those were his 
words. But your Lordships will remember, 
that, in the cross-examination of this wit- 

i"»l?4>l K* ' ' i -'I'll' t I J f i 

ness, circumstances were brought to light, 
which amounted to a very strong presump- 
tion indeed, if not to full proof, of malice 
in the witness against the rector and his 
family : And yet he let out one circum- 
stance in favour of Miss Raye's testimony; 
a little circumstance, my Lords,— which 
however I thought of great weight, coming 
from such a witness. It had certainly been 
to no purpose to keep the tithe-wheat and 
glebe-wheat separate in the stack, which 
Miss Raye said was done, and which I be- 
lieve was done, if they had been afterwards 
mingled in the barn : On the other hand, 
if a separation was made of the wheat (with- 



112 



out necessity) into two parcels in the barn, 
it is a strong presumption that these par- 
cels had been previously separated in the 
stack ; unless better proof than we have 
heard be adduced of the contrary. Ques- 
tions were put to this John Ballard, to sift 
this circumstance of separation or no-se- 
paration in the barn. He was asked " Was 
the wheat of the stack all put into one end 
of the barn?" He said " No ; some of it 
was mowed in one end, and some in the 
other." He was asked " Was one end full 
before you began to mow, or before you 
had orders to mow, in the other ?" He said 
" He could not tell ; he had not noticed that 
circumstance." I entreat your Lordships 
to remember that this fell from a witness 
suspected of malice. 

" The third witness called to prove the 
pretended confusion of tithe-wheat and 
glebe-wheat was Thomas Langham, a la- 



113 



bourer, who swore that he was one of two 
men who thrashed out the wheat in the 
barn, in the autumn 1790. In harvest-time 
he had helped to pitch both glebe and tithe 
wheat in the field into the waggons. He 
said, that whither the glebe-wheat was car- 
ried after he had pitched it, he knew not : 
He knew nothing therefore of the forma- 
tion of the stack : Nor could he know any- 
thing about the taking of it down ; for John 
Ballard, if he spoke the truth in that point, 
did all that business by himself. Langham 
indeed was asked whether the wheat of the 
stack was brought entirely into the barn 
before it was thrashed ; and he answered 
that it was : But what means he had of 
knowing that circumstance appears not. 
He swears however, that he, with another 
man, thrashed out the wheat in the barn, — 
whether it was the whole stack, or only a 
part of it ; for I cannot admit, my Lords, 

H 



114 



that his testimony in the very face of it 
carries any weight with respect to that cir- 
cumstance : Neither does it appear that he 
could know whether the wheat he helped 
to thrash was tithe-wheat and glebe-wheat 
mixed together, or tithe-wheat alone. He 
swears, that he, with another man, thrashed 
out wheat in the barn ; and that, in thrash- 
ing out, he did not make any separation : 
But that no separation of the grain thrashed 
out was made at all, is more than he said. 
He deposed indeed to another circum- 
stance, that he himself moved the wheat 
from the barn's-end to the thrashing-floor ; 
and that there did not appear to be any se- 
paration of the wheat in straw in the barn.- 
This he said in the course o r his examina- 
tion in chief : But, my Lords, upon the 
cross-examination, he affirmed what Ballard . 
(the malicious man) also confessed, — that 
some of the wheat was in one end of the 



115 



barn, and some in the other. This, I think, 
is the sum of Langham' s evidence in what 
relates to the wheat. And what does it 
amount to, but this,— that he, Thomas 
Langham, did not perform with his own 
hand that which Miss Raye says was done, 
but never said Thomas Langham did it. 
But, my Lords, this Thomas Langham was 
one only of two thrashers ; why was not the 
second thrasher produced ? My Lords, I 
thought it strange at the time — much more 
do I think so now, having discovered that 
the same person who thrashed with Tho- 
mas Langham was one of the two who as- 
sisted Thomas Pendilow in making the 
stack, and consequently was competent to 
depose to the rushes, as well as to the sepa- 
ration or no-separation of the grain thrash- 
ed in the barn, — my Lords, I think it very 
strange indeed, that the counsel against 
the petition, being so frugal ox evidence 



116 



as to produce to one point one witness out 
of three, to another one out of two, should 
choose to keep away that one of the two 
who was competent to depose to two im- 
portant facts, and to bring forward the other 
only, who could speak but to one of those 
facts, that one being of the two by far the 
most irrelevant. 

" My Lords, when the learned counsel for 
the petition represented to your Lordships 
that those other witnesses, James Mario w 
and the third stacker, who was also the se- 
cond thrasher, were in town, and earnestly 
entreated your Lordships to call them be- 
fore you, though they had no right to call 
them because they had closed their evi- 
dence, it was a great disappointment to me 
that the request was not granted. I felt 
the force of the objections made by noble 
lords in my eye, a noble earl and a noble 
viscount : I felt it so strongly, that I did 



117 



♦ not insist upon taking the sense of the 
Committee ; yet I lamented that these 
witnesses were not called. My Lords, I 
must say, that, had we called them, we 
should not have sacrificed substantial jus- 
tice to a point of form. My Lords, it con- 
sists with my personal knowledge to aver, 
that such persons as James Marlow and 
Simon Ferrer (for that is the name which 
Pendilow had forgotten) do exist ; that 
they were in London at the time when 
the learned counsel for the petition said 
they w^ere in London. And, my Lords, 
it is my firm belief and persuasion, that 
had your Lordships called these men be- 
fore you, James Marlow would have told 
your Lordships that a separation was ac- 
tually made in the stack by a bed of rushes, 
damaged hay, and damaged oats. He 
would have told your Lordships that he 
did himself assist Thomas Pendilow in 



118 



forming this bed of separation, — that he 
himself mowed the rushes for this purpose, 
by the rector's orders, and for the express 
purpose of keeping the glebe-wheat and 
the tithe-wheat separate. It is my belief 
and persuasion, that he would have told 
your Lordships that the rector said to him 
"James, I must have my tithe-wheat and my 
glebe-wheat kept apart : Go you and mow 
such and such rushes." He would have told 
your Lordships (as I believe), that the glebe- 
wheat was all laid below the rushes, — that 
the tithe-wheat was all laid above them : 
He would have told your Lordships, that 
such care was taken to keep the glebe- wheat 
and the tithe-wheat distinct, that the last 
waggon that came from the glebe-field 
brought only half a load. All this James 
Marlow would have told your Lordships, 
in the most precise peremptory terms, upon 
clear distinct recollection, — not like one 



119 



of the Ignaro family, my Lords. My Lords, 
it is my belief and persuasion, that Simon 
Ferrer would have confirmed Marlow's evi- 
dence about the separation by a bed of 
rushes, — that he would have told your 
Lordships that he saw that separation 
formed ; and it is my belief that he would 
have told your Lordships that he assisted 
Langham in thrashing wheat in the barn, 
and that the grain, when thrashed, was laid 
in separate parcels. My Lords, I have no 
more doubt of the veracity of this innocent 
young woman, in this important article of 
her evidence, — I have no more doubt of 
her veracity (which in this point is inse- 
parable from the truth of her fact), than I 
doubt the fact that I am now standing here 
asserting her veracity before your Lord- 
ships : And, my Lords, I am persuaded, 
that had these men been called before the 
Committee and examined, the same convic- 



120 



tion would have been impressed with equal 
force upon the mind of every noble lord. 

" My Lords, upon the subject of the 
wheat, Miss Raye was contradicted in ano- 
ther circumstance, — in the number of acres 
of glebe cropped with wheat in the year 
1790 : She made them not more than three 
or four acres. Thomas Pendilow said there 
were seven acres of the glebe in wheat. 
He had helped to reap the wheat : But 
observe, my Lords, he had not taken it to 
reap by the acre ; he worked by the day. 
What knowledge then had he of the num- 
ber of acres ? Did he speak by a rough 
guess ? — No, my Lords, — by no guess or 
judgment of his own at all : The rector, 
he said, had told him that he had seven 
acres of wheat in the glebe. My Lords, 
in these common fields, it is well known 
that a great proportion of the ground lies 
in the shape of balks and lands-ends, which 



121 



are never ploughed, but produce grass : It 
was easy to suppose, that the balks and lands- 
ends were included in the seven acres men- 
tioned by Thomas Pendilow and excluded 
from Miss Raye's account, — -that she spoke 
strictly of the Jand bearing wheat. Tho- 
mas Pendilow was asked whether the land 
in. wheat would amount to seven acres, be- 
sides balks and lands-ends.: His answer 
was, that he understood the rector to speak 
of seven acres of wheat, not including balks 
and lands-ends. Your Lordships see, that 
this man swears at last to nothing more 
than his own construction of the rector's 
conversation, — which might be right or 
might be wrong : If it was right, the rec- 
tor to be sure confessed to him seven acres 
of wheat ; and it will be for us to consider, 
how far the rector's confession, in loose un- 
guarded conversation, ought to counter- 
vail his daughter's solemn oath; but if 



122 

Thomas Pendilow put a wrong construc- 
tion on the rector's words, then the quanti- 
ty confessed by him, according to the true 
meaning of his words, might be greatly less 
than seven acres. But taking the deposi- 
tion just as it was given, and making the 
most of it, your Lordships will remember 
that it is nothing more than the deposition 
of Thomas Pendilow, — the worthy repre- 
sentative of the Ignaro family, my Lords. 

" My Lords, I have done with the wheat: 
The next exception to Miss Raye's evi- 
dence was taken upon the barley. My 
Lords, the circumstance in question is of 
no other consequence than as it may affect 
the general credit of the witness ; for it 
relates to the barley that grew upon the 
glebe ; and since it has not been pretend- 
ed that the account of the tithe-barley has ' 
been swelled with the addition of the glebe- • 
barley to it, the circumstance I am about m 



123 



to mention cannot otherwise affect the 
tithe-account than as it may affect the cre- 
dit of the witness, if it should turn out to 
be an instance of wilful deviation from the 
truth. My Lords, Thomas Pendilow de- 
posed, that the glebe-barley of the year 
1790 was inned and stacked in the rector's 
yards : Thomas Langham deposed, that 
Arnsby bought the barley of the glebe in 
grain after it was thrashed out. Here the 
counsel against the petition triumphed. 
Here are two witnesses, who clearly, ex- 
plicitly (for even the Ignaro man upon this 
point used no reserve or hesitation) — two 
witnesses clearly, explicitly, deny the fact 
that the glebe-barley was sold standing up- 
on the ground ; a fact deposed to by Miss 
Raye. Deposed to by Miss Raye ! Good 
God ! my Lords, I was struck with asto- 
nishment when this assertion fell from the 
learned and honourable counsel: Your 



124 



Lordships will be struck, when I assure 
your Lordships that the fact has not been 
explicitly deposed to by Miss Raye. My 
Lords, I speak not from an obscure distant 
recollection of the evidence which we 
heard Miss Raye give three weeks ago : 
My Lords, with a most anxious attention to 
this circumstance, have I read Miss Raye's 
evidence over and over again, the whole 
of it— the examination in chief and the 
cross-examination, yesterday, this morning. 
My Lords, I affirm distinctly, that in her 
whole evidence there is no mention of bar- 
ley growing on the glebe, expressly and by 
name ; it appears not by Miss Raye's evi- 
dence whether a single blade of barley 
grew in the glebe in the year 1790, or no. 
My Lords, she exposed herself to the dan- 
ger of this vile imputation, by that which 
is in truth a great argument of her can- 
dour and integrity — by a neglect of that 



125 



discretion which was so remarkable in the 
Ignaro man's manner of giving evidence: 
From a desire of informing your Lordships, 
she often in her answers went beyond the 
precise limits of the question : And this 
base imputation has no foundation in the 
express matter of her deposition ; it is 
founded only on an inference drawn from 
one of those answers, without any distinct 
mention of the glebe-barley in the imme- 
diate question which produced the answer, 
or in any previous part (or any following 
part) of the examination : Speaking of the 
crop of the glebe in general, she said that 
u the crop of the glebe, except the wheat, 
was sold standing." * The crop of the 
glebe, except the wheat. Now, my Lords, 



* The question put to Miss Raye was this, — c< Was the 
glebe in the rector's own occupation that year ? " she an- 
swered "Generally it was not, except some few acres; 
the crop of which; except the wheat, was sold standing." 



126 



if you will assume, what you cannot find 
in Miss Haye's evidence, that the glebe 
was in part cropped with barley, it will fol- 
low indeed, by inference from her words, 
that the barley was sold standing : And 
if your Lordships will assume farther, that 
the barley was distinctly in Miss Raye's 
recollection at the time when she gave this 
answer, as a part of all that crop which 
with the exception of the wheat only^ she 
said was sold standing, — and if your Lord- 
ships believe this fact disproved, as far as the 
barley is concerned, by the depositions of 
Pendilow and Langham, — then, to be sure, 
with the help of this inference and these 
assumptions, a cruel imputation will be 
brought upon the young woman. But I 
am confident your Lordships will not suf- 
fer the credit of a witness to be impeached 
in your Lordships' judgment by inference, 
and implication, and precarious assump- 



127 



dons. My Lords, I will not retaliate * 
upon the witnesses against the petition, — « 
though Thomas Pendilow was one of them, 
— I will not retaliate on them the injury 
and insult offered to the rector's daughter ; 
for, my Lords, I never will impute wilful 
falsehood where I can with any colour of 
probability suppose a mistake. My Lords, 
I do suppose that Thomas Pendilow saw a 
stack of barley in the rector's yard : Is he 
sure that it was the barley of the glebe ? 
He called it glebe-barley, but might it not 
be tithe ? It did not appear that he helped 
to bring home either the glebe-barley or 
the tithe-barley, or that he knew whence 
the barley which he saw in stack was 
brought. I suppose that Thomas Lang- 
ham knew that Arnsby bought barley of 
the rector in grain thrashed out ; but is he 
sure that it was not tithe-barley ? My 
Lords, upon this easy supposition, that 



128 



Pendilow and Langham have mistaken 
tithe-barley for glebe-barley (a mistake 
which they might very easily commit), the 
credit of all the witnesses is saved; it is 
saved, even if the inference from Miss 
Raye's testimony be taken as a part of her 
explicit deposition : I never will admit that 
it ought to be so taken ; but so taking it, I 
say that it is unfair and uncandid to im- 
pute fraud or prevarication on either side, 
when contradictory testimonies may be so 
easily reconciled. 

" My Lords, I have now done with 
wheat and barley : I come next to the 
turnips ; an article upon which we have 
been loudly charged. J Ve * have been 
charged, — yes, my Lords, I feel that I have 
fallen into the language of an advocate ; — 



* The Bishop observed a noble lord to laugh, and minute 
the expression. 



129 



let it pass ; my argument, I trust, will be 
impartial. Miss Raye, my Lords, has 
deposed that she received 7/. 12s. for se- 
venty-one and a half acres of turnips. She 
is taken up upon the number of acres : 
A man is produced (a Thomas Pywell), a 
tenant at will of Mr Hatton's, and one 
of his gamekeepers : He deposes to the 
acres of turnip in the common fields of 
Weldon in the year 1790; and he makes 
it, I forget the exact quantity, but certainly 
a third or a fourth less than the quantity 
mentioned by Miss Raye. By what know- 
ledge of the fact does he speak ? — By the 
most exact of all knowledge, my Lords, — 
by measurement of the turnip-land, made 
by himself. Measurement ! how was it 
made ? — With a chain. When ? — The 
Thursday or Friday was sennight before he 
was examined. His examination was taken 
on Monday the 14th of this very month ; 



130 



the Thursday or Friday sennight before, he 
was sent down from London, he told your 
Lordships, to make this measurement : 
Down he went, with his measuring-chain 
in his hand, in the beginning of May 1792, 
to measure the land that was cropped with 
turnips in the parish of Weldon in the 
year 1790 : He performs this task with 
great expedition, and with wonderful ac- 
curacy : He posts back again, and reports 
the quantity of land to an inch, my Lords ; 
he swears to acres, roods, and perches. 
Had the crop of turnips been all m one 
field, Mr Pywell ? — O no ! it grew in dif- 
ferent patches in different fields. And 
how did you, now, in May 1792, distin- 
guish exactly, so as to give evidence upon 
your oath, all these scattered patches that 
were in turnip in 1790 ? — My Lords, the 
man is blessed with a strong retentive me- 
mory of his own i and his recollection was 



131 



helped by the occupiers of the lands to 
whom he went round for that assistance! 

" Now, my Lords, let us consider in 
what way the poor young woman might 
come by her knowledge of the number 
of acres. But first, my Lords, let me ob- 
serve, that she has not sworn to the num- 
ber of acres as a distinct fact by itself ; she 
swears only to this complex proposition, — 
" I received so much money for so many 
acres of turnip." My Lords, this young 
woman is no surveyor, to measure land 
with a chain, — she is no gamekeeper, my 
Lords, to have a ready guess at the acres 
in a field by repeatedly walking over it : 
My Lords, the thing speaks for itself, when 
it is fairly considered; — the tithe of turnips 
is paid for in Weldon, as it is almost every- 
where, at so much by the acre ; and the 
number of acres mentioned by Miss Raye 
is the sum of the acres confessed by the 



132 



several tenants, at the time when they 
reckoned with her for the tithe of turnip : 
One mm paid for so many — another for so 
many ; and when the account of the year's 
produce is made up, the acres of the seve- 
ral tenants are collected into one sum, 
their payments are collected into one sum, 
and the witness deposes, that for so many 
acres of turnips (seventy-one and a half) 
she received so much money (7/. 12s.): 
The fact to which she must be understood 
to swear, of her own original knowledge, 
is the sum of money she received. And 
let me observe by the way, my Lords, that 
with respect to the sum of money recei- 
ved for every article, which is the material 
point, her testimony, under all the attacks 
that have been made upon it in other points, 
stands unquestioned. She swears to the 
acres only as the acres accounted and paid 
for by the tenants : And can your Lord- 



133 



ships believe that the tenants acknowledg- 
ed and paid for many more acres than were 
cropped with turnip ? Is it usual with your 
Lordships' tenants, when they settle with 
the parson, to magnify the account of what 
is due to him ? My Lords, upon this fact 
of the quantity of land cropped with turnip 
in the year 1790, which is more worthy of 
credit, the confession of the tenants at 
the time reckoning with the parson, or 
Mr Pywell's measurement, made now in 
May 1792, of the scattered patches of land, 
which his recollection, assisted by the recol- 
lection of the farmers, tells him was crop- 
ped with turnip in 1790 ? Which is most 
deserving of credit, my Lords ? — when it 
is remembered, that when the parishion- 
ers settled with the rector, or rather with 
the rector's daughter, it was not their in- 
terest to magnify, it is now their interest to 
abate. My Lords, this matter is so very 



134 



clear, that I should be ashamed to consume 
the time of the Committee by saying ano- 
ther word upon the subject. 

" My Lords, I now come to the last 
article in the account of the year 1790 in 
which the truth of it has been arraigned, — 
I mean the article of the wood of the pur- 
lieus. It is stated that the tithe of the 
wood produced 43/. 3s. My Lords, this 
is the only point upon which I feared I 
should be incompetent to speak with any 
confidence ; for the depositions relating 
to this wood are the only part of the evi- 
dence which I did not receive by my own 
ear. My Lords, the day the witnesses 
were examined who were called to contra- 
dict the account in this article, I had been 
sitting in the committee-room, at the table, 
listening to and minuting every syllable of 
the evidence, from eleven o'clock till three: 
Business of some magnitude, I forget what, 



135 



was to come on in the House that evening: 
I expected long debates and a midnight 
division : My Lords, I confess with shame, 
I had the meanness — I have repented of 
it ever since — to shrink from the fatigue 
of my Parliamentary duty; and not at all 
foreseeing the important matter that was 
immediately coming on, I retired for re- 
freshment : I was absent from the com- 
mittee-room a little more than an hour ; 
and during my absence, the depositions of 
the stewards of the woods were taken: 
When I returned, some noble lords, whose 
sentiments I knew had much accorded with 
my own upon the whole business, so far as 
we had yet gone, told me " Here is a mis- 
take about the woods." After the whole 
evidence was closed, when I mentioned it 
to some noble lords, as my clear opinion, 
that all the contradiction given to Miss 
Raye amounted to nothing at all, and de- 



136 



clared my intention of going in detail into 
the discussion of the evidence, article by 
article, they said " Remember, however, 
there was a mistake about the wood." 
This was suggested to me by noble lords 
whose sentiments I knew to be in general 
the same with mine upon every part of this 
business, as the single mistake, but as a 
mistake which must be admitted. My 
Lords, it gave me great satisfaction to per- 
ceive, by casting my eye over Miss Raye's 
account, that the mistake, whatever it might 
be, was an innocent mistake,- — that it must 
be mere mistake, not design, my Lords ; 
for this reason, that this wood was charged 
on both sides of the account, and made 
no difference at all in striking the balance. 
The wood was reckoned in the account of 
the produce of 1790; but it was also reckon- 
ed as a distinct article of the future produce 
of the living, under the enclosure, if the 



137 



bill should pass : It swelled the account 
of the amount of tithes ; but it equally 
swells the account of the produce of the 
living, if the commutation should take 
place. The allotment of land is not to co- 
ver the tithe of wood; and the tithe of 
wood is very fairly charged as a distinct 
article of future produce. If the charge 
of this tithe-wood is a mistake on one side, 
it is equally a mistake on the other : If 
you strike it out here, you must strike it 
out there ; and the difference between the 
amount of the year 1790 and the future 
produce of the living under the commuta- 
tion, will, in spite of this supposed mis- 
take, remain what the account makes it. I 
confess, I was much satisfied to find the 
supposed mistake so innocent ; still I 
wished to discover upon what ground of 
evidence a mistake had been so generally 
admitted. Yesterday morning, my Lords > 



138 



at an early hour, I came down to this 
House ; I applied to the Clerk for his mi- 
nutes of our proceedings; and in his room, 
I sat me down to study the depositions of 
the stewards of the woods in his minutes. 
I presently perceived that the only woods 
which fell in 1790 were a part of Lord 
Sondes's and a part of Mr Hatton's; so 
that the 43/. 3s., if there was no mistake, 
must all be accounted for from the tithes 
of those woods. Now, John Walker, the 
steward of Lord Sondes's woods, confessed 
in his evidence that he paid Mr Raye in 
money, for the tithe of Lord Sondes's fall 
in 1790, the sum of 26/. 14s. 3d. : He de- 
posed, that the money was paid in January 
1791. Is this the mistake? was the re- 
ceipt of 1791 charged to the account of 
1790? — No such thing, my Lords; the 
witness was distinct and candid : He said 
the money was paid in January 1791 ; but 



139 



he had said before that the fall was made 
in 1790. Indeed the thing speaks for it- 
self : If the money was paid so early in 
the year 1791 as the month of January, the 
fall must have been in the preceding year. 
The money therefore, though not paid till 
1791, is justly put to the account of the 
year 1790, in which the tithe accrued. 
Now for the tithe of Mr Hatton's fall in 
the year 1790. The steward of Mr Hat- 
ton's woods, Mr Pywell (not the famous 
measurer of turnip-grounds, but another 
Mr Pywell), deposes that the tithe of Mr 
Hatton's wood was not sold to Mr Hat- 
ton, but taken in kind by the rector, and 
carried off. Mr Pywell therefore could 
give no account of what the rector might 
make of this tithe, otherwise than by in- 
forming your Lordships of the value of 
Mr Hatton's nine tenths, by which the 
value of the rector's single tenth might be 



140 



estimated. He deposed, that the value of 
Mr Hatton's nine tenths was 127/. The 
ninth part of this is 14/. 2s. 2d. ; which must 
have been the value of the rector's tenth, 
according to Pywell's estimate. Now, will 
some noble lord assist me ; it is difficult to 
compute and speak at the same time. 
(Lord Spencer and the Bishop of Bangor 
each took up a pen.) My Lords, to 26/. 
14s. 3d., the price paid to the rector for 
Lord Sondes' s fall, add 14/. 2s. 2d., the 
value of the tithe of Mr Hatton's fall, 
what is the sum ? (Lord Spencer and the 
Bishop of Bangor both answered 40/. 16s. 
5d.) Very well, my Lords, of Miss Raye's 
43/. 3s. we have actually accounted for 40/. 
16s. 5d. ; the difference is 21. 6s. 7d., — which 
is the utmost amount of her mistake, if any 
mistake has been committed. My Lords, I 
find by the deposition of Daniel York, that 
there was a small fall of Lord Upper Os- 



141 



sory's wood in the year 1791 ; and that 
the tithe of that fall amounted to 2/. 4s. 
My Lords, was this the mistake ? has she 
to the 40/. 16s. 5d. of the year 1790 added 
this little sum of the succeeding year ? To 
be sure this will make up all that remains 
to be accounted for, within two or three 
shillings. My Lords, if this was the mis- 
take, the smallness of the error (not to re- 
peat what I have said about the insignifi- 
cance of it, as it stands in the account, 
had it been ever so great) proves that it 
must have been mere inadvertence ; for it 
could never be by design that she advan- 
ced the account from 40/. 16s. 5d. to 43/. 
3s., in order to make an addition of so 
small a sum as forty-six shillings to the 
whole receipt of the year, which exceeded 
640/. But, my Lords, I feel myself under * 
no necessity of admitting even this small 
mistake : It is a probable supposition, that 



142 



the tithe of wood, which the rector took in 
kind of Mr Hatton, might be sold at as 
much more than PywelPs valuation of it, 
as would do away all the mighty difference 
between 40/. 16s. 5d., already accounted for, 
and Miss Raye's sum of 43/. 3s. 

" But it was hinted to me one day in 
the committee-room, by a noble lord, that 
as the fall of these woods was not made 
every year, the tithe of wood received in 
any one year ought not to be taken for 
the yearly average of that species of tithe. 
Certainly not, my Lords : Nor was the sum 
of 43/. 3s. deposed to by Miss Raye as the 
yearly average of the tithe of wood, but as 
the produce of that tithe in the year 1790 ; 
for the title of her account is this, " The 
value of the rectorial dues of Weldon in 
the year 1790." She was indeed asked a 
question about average ; and I shall have 
occasion hereafter to recall to your Lord- 



143 



ships' attention the fair ingenuous answer 
which she gave to it ; which will entirely 
clear her of any design of representing this 
article as the yearly average of the tithe- 
wood. 

" My Lords, I have now spoken to every 
article of Miss Rave's evidence that has 
been called in question.* I hope I have 



* One point of little moment the Bishop passed by un- 
noticed. A weak attempt had been made to confute Miss 
Raye about the price of barley. She deposed to twenty- 
six shillings as the average price at which she had sold sixty 
quarters. Arnsby swore that he bought of the rector, in the 
year 1790, thirty-seven quarters one bushel, at twenty-five 
shillings per quarter. Now, as this was not much more than 
half the quantity which the rector had to sell, the average 
price of the whole might be what Miss Raye stated, though 
the truth of Arnsby's assertion should be admitted. But 
his assertion was not true. In an account between himself 
and the rector, running from 15th March 1790 to 2d May 
1791, Arnsby makes Mr Raye his creditor for barley bought 
by him of Mr Raye in October, November, and December, 
1790, at the various prices of twenty -five shillings, twenty- 
five shillings and sixpence, and twenty- seven shillings, per 
quarter. The Bishop went down to the debate with this 



144 



missed none ; — I am sure I have missed 
none of any importance: And I hope 
I have convinced your Lordships, that 
Miss Raye's depositions have not been 
confuted, or even in the least degree dis- 
credited, in any one of the points which I 
have considered ; and that in many they 



curious document in his pocket : But considering that the pa- 
per had not been given in evidence (for it was sent for from 
the country after Arnsby was examined, and it came too late), 
and that he had no means of proving the handwriting, the 
witnesses being all gone out of town except Miss Raye her- 
self and the Reverend Mr Graham, he thought it better to 
leave the truth of Miss Raye's assertion about the price of 
the barley to stand upon the general credit of her evidence, 
established, as he conceived it to be, by his own argument 
upon more material points, and upon the general incohe- 
rence of Arnsby's ; which, had not the debate been unexpec- 
tedly cut short by the proposal of a compromise on the part of 
Mr Hatton, would have been well set forth by a noble lord 
who had declared his intention to the Bishop of going into 
a minute discussion of Arnsby's evidence, and of tearing it 
all to pieces. The Bishop, in the most confident expecta- 
tion of his noble friend's success in that undertaking, was 
well pleased to leave Mr Arnsby in his lordship's hands, 
where he would have found no quarter. 



145 



have been confirmed by the testimony of 
the witnesses that were called to contra- 
dict her. 

" My Lords, it was advanced in argument 
by the learned and honourable counsel a- 
gainst the petition, that, setting out of the 
question all the objections to the items of 
the produce of the year, the net income 
is fallaciously stated, because Miss Raye 
has allowed for no other outgoings than 
the expenses of the collection : The learn- 
ed and honourable gentleman observed 
that she had deducted nothing from the 
gross produce for rates and taxes. My 
Lords, I shall readily confess that this is 
(or rather that it might be, for I am not 
sure that it is) an omission ; a very par- 
donable omission, my Lords, and of very 
little consequence, — such as in no degree 
reflects upon the integrity of this young 
woman ; of which I trust I have produced 

K 



146 



abundant proof. Depend upon it, my 
Lords, she reasoned thus : The living will 
still be subject to rates and taxes, if the 
enclosure should take effect ; the deduc- 
tion therefore will be the same then as 
now ; and it is needless to take notice of 
an equal deduction on both sides of an 
account, which leaves the balance unaltered. 
My Lords, if there was any inaccuracy in 
this reasoning, it was only this, — that for 
the tithes in kind the rector is liable to 
the taxes both of landlord and occupier ; 
for the allotment of land, if he lets it, which 
the account supposed, he will be subject to 
those of landlord only. The taxes under 
the enclosure therefore may possibly be 
diminished ; and I will grant that this 
ought to have been stated : But the omis- 
sion seems to have been mere inadvertency; 
and, I apprehend, is of very little conse- 
quence : For though I believe in my con- 



147 

science, that the produce of the living, 
under its present good management, is as 
much as Miss Raye's account makes it to 
be, yet it must be taxed and rated accord- 
ing to the last letting ; and after the unfair 
advantage that was taken of that circum- 
stance in argument, your Lordships will 
hardly forget that the last letting was very- 
low ; insomuch that, upon the whole, I do 
very much question whether the rates and 
taxes upon the commutation will fall much 
short of the present rates and taxes. Had 
the whole present rates and taxes been de- 
ducted, I suppose the net income from 
the tithes in kind would not have been 
lowered above 20/. per annum, if so much. 
Upon the whole, I am not sure that this 
was an omission, — certainly not a conceal- 
ment ; but I am in doubt whether it ought 
to be admitted as an omission, even of 
inadvertence. 



148 

" But the learned and honourable coun- 
sel charged Miss Raye with an omission of 
much greater magnitude : He said that 
she ought to have reckoned, as an article 
of the outgoings, the wages of that service 
(as he called it) which she performs for 
her father. He said, that if an event which 
may naturally enough be expected should 
remove this excellent daughter from her 
father's family, a servant must be retained 
to do the business which she at present 
takes upon herself ; and the wages of that 
service he put very high. My Lords, I 
am not inclined to say that he overrated 
them ; but I do deny that the wages of 
such service, if such service were to be pro- 
cured for pay, are to be placed to the ac- 
count of the outgoings from the living ; — 
for this reason, my Lords, — the service is 
of that sort which every man who has his 
health and his senses, mens sana in corpore 



149 



sano, is supposed to perform for himself; 
and it must be owing to some peculiarity 
in the man, if he wants another to do it 
for him. The want of such assistance 
must be peculiar to Mr Raye, as Mr Raye ; 
not common to him with all that ever were 
or will be rectors of Weldon. The neces- 
sity must arise from some particular cir- 
cumstance in his health or his disposition : 
He may be a sickly man, a vapoured man, 
an indolent man, a careless man, or, my 
Lords, he may be a very studious man. 
My Lords, I speak upon this subject with 
something of a fellow-feeling : My own fa- 
mily accounts would be ill kept were they 
in my own keeping : My Lords, should / 
have the misfortune to be deprived of my 
assistant, and find myself obliged to retain 
at a considerable salary some discreet trus- 
ty gentlewoman to keep the accounts of 
my family expenses, my Lords, could I 



150 



fairly reckon that salary among the out- 
goings of the bishopric of St David's? 
Would the Minister allow me so to reckon 
it, were I to give in an account of my 
bishopric to him, to show him the defi- 
ciencies of it, and enforce my claim to 
some profitable commendam ? — My Lords, 
he would treat such an item of outp;oino;s 
with ridicule and contempt ; and he ought 
so to treat it. And the case is the very 
same in the present instance. 

ff For another reason, my Lords, the va- 
lue of Miss Raye's services are not to be 
reckoned as outgoings from the living ; be- 
cause they are services not necessary to 
the collection of the living, — they are ser- 
vices that arise out of no particular spe- 
cies of property, but are necessary in all 
families, for in all families accounts must 
be kept. My Lords, when the learned and 
honourable counsel mentioned this as an 



151 



article of the outgoings, it struck me that 
he might as well have insisted that the an- 
nual amount of the rector's butcher's bill 
should be put to the charge of the outgo- 
ings of the living. (The Bishop observed 
a general look of surprise in the Commit- 
tee ; from, which he concluded that this 
remark was either not understood at all, 
or that it struck forcibly : He therefore 
thought proper to dwell upon it.) Noble 
lords seem to receive this remark with sur- 
prise : Will noble lords explain to me why 
the butcher's bill is not an outgoing ? 
The money goes out of the man's purse, 
there is no doubt of that ; in that sense 
therefore it is an outgoing, — but it is not 
an outgoing from the living. Why? — If 
any noble lord will do me the favour to 
put that question to me, I think I can 
answer it. The butcher's bill is not an 
outgoing from the living, because the meat 



152 



which is bought with the money raised by 
the sale of the tithe is still the produce of 
the living, converted out of the substance 
of money into the substance of meat ; the 
meat is the rector's property ; and that 
property is as much the produce of the 
living in the shape of beef, as it was in the 
shape of wheat and other grain in the barn 
before the grain was converted into gold 
and silver coin. My Lords, the very same 
thing is to be said of the labour of ser- 
vants : The labour of servants is property ; 
and being acquired by the money raised 
from the living, is still the produce of it in 
another shape. The wages that pay for the 
service are not an outgoing from the living, 
unless the service be of that sort which is 
immediately employed in the collection of 
the profits of the living : In that case, but 
in no other, the expense of the service is 
an outgoing from the living. Miss Raye's 



153 

service to her father is not of that sort ; 
her service is the exact and faithful keep- 
ing of accounts. The profits of the living 
might be collected though such accounts 
were not kept : The rector might still en- 
joy the fruits of the rectory, though he 
would not so exactly know what he enjoy- 
ed. And, my Lords, these accounts have 
no analogy to a tradesman's books, which 
the tradesman must hire a clerk to keep ; 
they are merely a gentleman's private ac- 
counts. 

" My Lords, I have now considered every 
mistake or omission with which Miss Raye 
has been charged. One omission only can 
I find, — that of the rates and taxes ; an o- 
mission of which I cannot exactly rate the 
effect, but I am confident it must be very 
small : I suspect it is nothing ; and, if it 
be any thing, I have shown how easily the 
omission is to be traced to honest inad- 



154 



vertency. But, my Lords, had errors been 
found in Miss Raye's account which have 
not been found in it, I should still have 
protested against the fallacy and iniquity 
of a maxim advanced in argument by the 
learned and honourable counsel, in sum- 
ming up, " that an error proved in a single 
article of the account must be allowed to 
discredit the whole and every part of it." 
My Lords, the thing implied in this maxim 
is too plain : This uncandid principle as- 
sumes the guilt it would conclude. Show 
me a fraudulent statement of an}^ one ar- 
ticle of an account, and I will be open to 
the suspicion of a fraud in the whole, or in 
any other article : But upon no other prin- 
ciple but the supposition of a fraudulent 
design can it be allowed, that, in an ac- 
count composed of a variety of articles, - 
having no necessary connexion with each 
other, an error in one or more concludes 



155 



error in all the rest. This argument of 
the learned counsel's ran in a circle, and 
tacitly assumed as its foundation the hor- 
rible conclusion it was meant to establish. 
The learned counsel afterwards spoke out 
more plainly : My Lords, I was astonish- 
ed and amazed, when, upon no better 
grounds than the evidence of such wit- 
nesses as he had called, and the flimsy tex- 
ture of his own arguments, he hurled the 
vile charge of perjury at a trembling wo- 
man's head. 

" My Lords, a general exception was ta- 
ken, by this learned and honourable coun- 
sel, to Miss Raye's evidence, as the evi- 
dence of an interested witness : He said, 
that a daughter is more an interested wit- 
ness for the father than a tenant at will 
or a gamekeeper for the lord. My Lords, 
it was very well answered, but I think 
not sufficiently, by the very learned coun- 



156 



sel in reply, that Miss Raye was not what 
any jury would have deemed an interest- 
ed witness. My Lords, the remark was 
certainly just ; Miss Raye has no such 
immediate interest in the revenues of the 
living of Weldon as would make her what 
our courts of justice call an interested wit- 
ness : But, my Lords, I apprehend that the 
learned and honourable gentleman who so 
called her did not really mean that she 
was interested in the strict forensic mean- 
ing of the word ; — he meant that she was 
subject to an influence ; and he meant to 
say that the influence of a parent over his 
child is stronger than that of lord over te- 
nant at will or gamekeeper. This, I be- 
lieve, was his meaning ; but, my Lords, I 
deny it — flatly I deny it, speaking of cor- 
ruptive influence. My Lords, I maintain 
that the relation of lord to tenant at will 
or servant is productive of a far more cor- 



157 

ruptive influence than that of parent to 
child. My Lords, I have detained your 
Lordships so long [Heai\ hear ! — Go on, go 
on /), that I will not argue this question ge- 
nerally, as I thought to have done. I will 
only trouble your Lordships with a re- 
mark upon this particular case, — that in 
this instance the influence must be all on 
the daughter's side ; she is evidently so ne- 
cessary to her father, that she must have 
influence over him, — he can have no un- 
due influence over this daughter. 

" My Lords, I have now done with my 
defence of Miss Raye's evidence : I must 
now trouble your Lordships, as I proposed, 
with very few words about average. 

" Miss Raye was asked whether she be- 
lieved that the amount of the year 1790 
was nearly the average value of the living. 
She said she thought it was ; and, without 
speaking to the average of each species of 



158 



tithe, she gave a reason for that opinion, 
which I confess made a stronger impres- 
sion upon my mind than any calculation 
could have made upon it : She said she 
believed the amount of the year 1790 to 
be nearly the average, because she had ma- 
naged her father's accounts since the year 
1786 ; and (though the tithes since that 
time have been taken in kind) she had 
found little variation in his income from 
one year to another. My Lords, the an- 
swer was fair and ingenuous ; and I give 
credit to it. I am confirmed in the belief 
that the receipt of this year was very near- 
ly the average of the living, from a calcu- 
lation of my own of the probable yearly 
value; which I shall submit to the con- 
sideration of your Lordships. (The Bishop 
gives in his calculation.) My Lords, it is 
formed upon principles generally recei- 
ved and followed ; and is independent of 



159 

every thing given in evidence on the side 
of the petition, except the acknowledged 
quantity of land in the parish, of the dif- 
ferent sorts — of arable, meadow, ley, enclo- 
sure, and forest. My Lords, I make the 
gross annual amount of the rectorial tithes 
640/. ; the expense of collecting I put at 
65/. ; and having supplied Miss Raye's 
omissions, — not her perjuries, my Lords ; 
never shall my tongue brand them, never 
shall it be silent if I hear them branded, 
with that odious name, — but having sup- 
plied her supposed omissions by a mode- 
rate allowance for taxes, and by taking 
into the account the trifling payments for 
tenths and procurations, I raise the annual 
outgoings to 82/. 7d., which subducted from 
640/. leaves 557/. 19s. 5d. (say 558/.) for 
the net annual income. In this valuation, 
your Lordships will observe, neither the 
rent of the glebe nor the tithe of wood is 



160 

included. Thus, my Lords, the net in- 
come, according to my valuation, is but 
231. short of the actual net produce of the 
tithes in the year 1790, as stated by Miss 
Raye. Of this difference of 23/., so much 
as 17/. 7d. is owing to the charge I have 
made against the living for taxes, tenths, 
and procurations : The remaining dif- 
ference of 51. 19s. 5d. (say 61.) would be 
more than made up by adding to my va- 
luation of the gross produce the annual 
average of tithe- wood; which ought to be 
added, since the account given in evidence 
of the year 1790 takes in that species of 
tithe. Now surely, my Lords, from this 
near agreement of my calculation with the 
actual receipt of the year 1790, I have 
some reason to conclude that the receipt 
of the year 1790 was very nearly the ave- 
rage of the living ; for my calculation, if 
it be any thing, is a calculation of average. 



161 



" But, my Lords, I said at the beginning 
that this inquiry into the average, a point 
upon which the learned counsel against the 
petition said so much, and, as I thought I 
perceived, with strong impression upon 
your Lordships' minds, is really, in my 
judgment, of no importance ; because, in 
comparing the present value of the living 
with the value of it under the circum- 
stances of the proposed allotment, the pro- 
duce of the year 1790 ought rather to be 
made the basis of calculation than the ave- 
rage value, if the average could be proved 
to have been greatly short of the amount 
of that year. My Lords, I shall in very 
few words show upon what ground I ad- 
vance what may seem so singular a notion. 
My Lords, the acknowledged expected ef- 
fect of the enclosure will be a rapid improve- 
ment of the cultivation of the whole parish, 
consequently a rapid improvement of the 

l • 



162 



living, were the lands to continue subject 
to the payment of tithes in kind. And in 
another way, the enclosure will greatly ad- 
vance the value of the rector's tithes ; be- 
cause, as your Lordships well know, more 
land will come under that cultivation which 
yields its whole tithe to the rector, and 
less will continue in that cultivation which 
yields a moiety of its tithes to the impro- 
priator. For both these reasons, my Lords, 
the value of the living is from this moment 
in a state of rapid growth ; and whatever 
the average may have been of former years, 
I think it never could again (except in sea- 
sons of extraordinary scarcity) produce so 
little, were the tithes to be taken in kind, 
as it produced in the year 1790. I con- 
sider the value of that year as the minimum 
of all years from that time forward, though 
it should exceed the average of years past ; 
and the rector takes no undue advantage,-— 



163 



he gives all the advantage that he ought to 
give — more than might in justice be de- 
manded of him, — when he takes that year 
for the basis of his calculation. Will it be 
asked, why is no account taken of the later 
year, of the year 1791 ? My Lords, it has 
appeared in evidence that 1791 was an ex- 
cessive year ; it was rendered excessive by 
the expectation of immediate enclosure: 
And it is an argument of fair dealing on the 
rector's side, that he has not attempted to 
avail himself of the vast profit of that year 
to enhance his claim. 

" My Lords, I have gone through every 
point of my argument : Before I sit down" 

(Here the Mace entered the room, and 

required the attendance of the Peers in 
Westminster Hall, What the Bishop was 
going to say was of no great consequence. 
The Committee adjourned to the next day, 
Wednesday May 23d.) 



164 



The Bishop was heard through the whole of this long 
speech with the greatest marks of favour and attention. 
Whenever he attempted to apologize for the length of it, 
or for the delay that he often made by referring to the 
minutes of the evidence, he was always encouraged by the 
general and eager cry of " Hear, hear ! " The Bishop obser- 
ved, while he was speaking, that his argument was careful- 
ly minuted by a noble viscount, whose family connexions 
might be supposed not to incline him to favour the petition. 
The Bishop observed that every unguarded expression that 
fell from him, such as fall from every speaker in the fe- 
ver of debate, was marked and minuted by the noble vis- 
count. In short, it was evident to the Bishop himself, and, 
as he thought, to the whole Committee, that it was from 
that noble viscount, if from any noble lord, that the Bishop 
was to expect a reply ; and, considering the great abilities 
and the habits of that noble viscount in Parliamentary de- 
bate, upon all subjects, the Bishop did expect the strongest 
reply that an argument so impugnable as he conceived his 
own to be in all its points could receive. The appearance 
of the Mace in the committee-room, as has been mentioned, 
stopped the Bishop abruptly, and of consequence prevented 
ihe opportunity of a reply on that day. The next day, Wed- 
nesday the 23d, when the Committee met according to ad- 
journment, after some short speeches upon the question 
of consent, from the Bishops of Bangor, Peterborough, and 
St David's, the noble viscount from whom the Bishop of St 
David's expected an answer to his argument upon the evi- 
dence, rose in his place, and said — " My Lords, I do not 
rise to speak ; I rise to make a proposal." His Lordship 
then made a proposal of compromise in the name of Mr 
Hatton, and sat down. The Committee approved of the 



165 



proposal ; and the Bishop of St David's was asked if he 
would recommend the terms to Miss Raye, who was under- 
stood to be intrusted by her father with the entire manage- 
ment of the business. The Bishop of St David's, seeing 
little hope of success in any farther opposition to the bill, 
after a proposal had been made which received the appro- 
bation of so numerous a Committee that it might seem al- 
most equivalent to the approbation of the whole House, 
(the Bishop of the diocese himself being in that Committee, 
and concurring warmly in that approbation), took it upon 
him to recommend the proposed accommodation; though 
his own opinion remained then (and remained to the last) 
unchanged with respect to the value of the living ; and the 
terms offered, though very liberal as referring to the allot- 
ment, were far short of an equivalent for the tithes in kind. 
One great motive with the Bishop to close with the pro- 
posal was, that it left him in possession of an undisputed 
victory upon the interesting question of a most deserving 
young woman's character, most unjustly and injuriously im- 
peached. Not a syllable had been said in reply to the 
Bishop's defence of her evidence ; not a syllable could be 
said if the compromise took place, — the noble viscount who 
proposed it having by this very measure (if it took effect) 
deprived himself of any future opportunity of the reply that 
was expected from him. Under these circumstances, the 
Bishop of St David's strongly recommended the acceptance 
of the offered terms. It was not without difficulty that Miss 
Raye was persuaded ; she insisted to the last, and with great 
reason, that the terms of the proposal were far short of the 
value of the tithes in kind. She yielded however to the 
advice and entreaties of her two friends the Bishop of St 
David's and the Reverend Mr Graham ; who both urged, 



166 



that the acceptance of the proposal was, in the actual pos- 
ture of affairs, the best thing to be done for her father's in- 
terests, and for the living ; and that her character was se- 
cured against all malicious insinuations, by the manner and 
the moment in which the proposal came from Mr Hatton's 
friends. The manner, the moment, and the substance of 
the proposal, made it indeed equivalent to a confession, that 
the Bishop's defence of her evidence was unanswerable, and 
that the bare value of the allotment would be an inade^ 
quate compensation for the tithes in kind. 



ON THE THIRD READING OF THE 
TREASON BILL; 

November 30, 1795. 



On Friday the 6th of November 1795, 
Lord Grenville brought in a bill entitled 
" a bill to prevent seditious and treason- 
able practices." The bill originated in a 
daring attack which had been made on 
the King, in his way to the Parliament- 
House, on Thursday the 29th of October. 
During the time the clauses of the bill 
were agitated in a committee, some very 
warm and personal debates took place. In 
one of these, Dr Horsley (now Bishop of 
Rochester) supported the measure ; and 
insisted, in the course of his argument, 



168 



that " all that the people had to do with 
the laws of the country was to obey them." 
This was very warmly taken up by Lord 
Lauderdale ; who said, he should not 
have been surprised at such an expression 
from an Eastern mufti, — but that it should 
fall from an English bishop, astonished 
him beyond measure. In reply to this, 
the Bishop, on the third reading of the 
bill, 18th November 1795, rose and said, 

" MY LORDS, 

The sentiment which fell from 
me, in a former night's debate, which has 
excited such a fever in the mind of the 
noble earl, and has drawn forth such a 
torrent of his eloquence, I uttered upon 
the gravest deliberation, and with the stea- 
diest conviction of my mind ; and I never 
shall retract it. My Lords, I am sensible 
that it is perfectly disorderly to allude to 



169 



any thing that passed in a former debate ; 
and I should not have done it, had not the 
noble earl compelled me to this irregu- 
larity : But when any of your Lordships 
is thus attacked, he generally meets with 
the indulgence of the House, if, in his own 
defence, he transgresses the strict rule of 
order. My Lords, a turn was given to 
my expressions, at the time, as if I had 
delivered that maxim professing at the 
same time to be little acquainted with the 
laws of my country. My Lords, I made no 
such profession : I never meant to impute 
that ignorance to myself, whatever other 
noble lords may impute to me. I avowed 
only an ignorance of those technical parts 
of the law in which none but lawyers by 
profession can be learned, and in which it 
is no disgrace to any man that is not a 
lawyer by profession to be unlearned. This 
avowal of my ignorance was made in sta- 



170 



ting to your Lordships, as I thought it my 
duty to state, the wide difference of my 
opinion, concerning the second clause of 
this bill, from the opinions that were ad- 
vanced by a noble and a learned lord* 
whom I am proud to call my friend. My 
Lords, it was painful to me at the time to 
express my dissent from his opinions, be- 
cause he was absent ; and I thank the 
noble earl who has given me the oppor- 
tunity, now that my noble friend is in his 
place, to repeat my objections to his argu- 
ment. My Lords, I said that the only 
point of argument I could perceive in my 
noble and learned friend's objections to the 
provisions of the bill was this, — that the 
bill applies the punishment of felony to 
crimes not felonious. I said, my Lords, 
that this seemed to me a technical object 



* Lord Thurlow. 



171 



tion, of which perhaps " I was not lawyer 
enough to perceive the force." I observed, 
that those punishments were not applied 
by the bill to crimes of simple misdemea- 
nour, except upon the accumulation of the 
crime by a repetition of it : That it satis- 
fied my mind concerning the justice of the 
bill, that the punishments were no more 
than were proportioned to the natural tur- 
pitude and malignity of the crimes, — which 
seemed to me the true measure of punish- 
ment ; whereas the noble and learned lord 
had argued as if punishment were rather to 
be adjusted to the technical denominations 
of crime. The force of that argument, I 
said, I was perhaps not enough of a law- 
yer to perceive. This, my Lords, was all 
the ignorance I took to myself. 

" My Lords, the noble earl, who took 
fire at my assertion that " individuals have 
nothing to do with the laws but to obey 



172 



them/ 5 said, that " individuals ought not 
only to obey the laws, but to study them," 
My Lords, the noble earl said well : It is 
the duty of individuals to study the laws, 
that they may shape their conduct by 
them : It is the duty of every one who 
holds a place in this legislative assembly, 
to study them more particularly ; that he 
may have a full comprehension of the 
whole system of our laws, a knowledge 
of the relation of one part to another, 
and of the general spirit of the whole ; 
that he may be competent to judge of 
the legality of public measures — of the 
consistency or the inconsistency of new 
laws proposed with the laws already sub- 
sisting. My Lords, this study of the laws 
of my country I have not neglected. I 
should be unworthy of the place I hold 
in this assembly, I should be ashamed to 
rise before your Lordships, with a con- 



173 



sciousness upon my mind of an ignorance 
upon this subject. Not affecting any such 
ignorance, — not putting myself in this 
branch of knowledge below the level of 
any noble lord who has not studied law as 
a lawyer by profession, — -certainly not put- 
ting myself below the level of the noble 
diike* who thought fit to impute this igno- 
rance to me, — affecting no such ignorance, 
but assuming and arrogating to myself all 
that knowledge of the laws which becomes 
the station I have the honour to hold, — I 
repeat, under the restrictions with which 
at the first I qualified the assertion, With 
the exception of such laws as may have a 
bearing upon the particular interests of 
certain persons or bodies of men, who 
have undoubtedly a right to discuss such 
laws — to meet for the purpose of consider-* 



* Duke of Bedford. 



174 



ing such laws pending or existing — to use 
all decent freedom of speech in such dis- 
cussions — -to petition to stop the progress 
of any such law pending, or to obtain the 
repeal of any such law existing, which may 
be to them a grievance (and, my Lords, I 
take the word " grievance" in a large sense 
to signify even inconvenience), — my Lords, 
with this restriction, and with the excep- 
tion of such laws, I repeat the assertion, 
that " individuals have nothing to do with 
the laws but to obey them." 

" My Lords, the noble earl said, that 
this was a maxim better calculated for the 
meridian of Constantinople than of Lon- 
don. My Lords, those were not the noble 
earl's expressions : He delivered the senti- 
ment in other words, — in that vein of plea- 
santry in which the noble earl so much ex- 
cels ; and I heard it with a high relish of 
the wit, though it fell upon myself He 



175 



said it was a doctrine that would have 
come with better grace from the lips of 
the Mufti than from the mouth of an Eng- 
lish prelate. My Lords, the noble earl is 
mistaken ; the maxim is not calculated 
for the meridian of Constantinople : The 
miserable inhabitants under that dismal 
sky have no law, my Lords, to study or to 
obey ; they have only to obey the change- 
able will, caprice, or whim, of their tyrant. 
My Lords, it is a maxim not calculated for 
the meridian of Geneva, or of any other 
turbulent democracy : In such govern- 
ments, the people have only to obey the 
uncertain veering humour of popular as- 
semblies. But in this country, my Lords, 
where the rule of conduct lies certain and 
defined in the letter of the statute-book, 
and in recorded customs and adjudged 
cases, an equal rule to all, liable to no 
sudden change or perversion — to no par- 



176 



tial application from the passion or the 
humour of the moment, — in a country thus 
blessed, the individual subject, with the re- 
strictions that I have stated, " has nothing 
to do with the laws but to obey them." 
My Lords, it is a maxim which I ever will 
maintain, — I will maintain it to the death, 
— I will maintain it under the axe of the 
guillotine, if, through any insufficiency of 
the measures which may now be taken, the 
time should ever come when the prelates 
and nobles of this land must stoop their 
necks to that engine of democratic ty- 
ranny. 

" My Lords, I have heard nothing this 
night to alter my opinion concerning the 
expediency and justice of the bill before us. 
I have heard that it creates new crimes : 
But, my Lords, when this is said, the dis-_ 
tinction seems not to be taken between 
creating new crimes and applying new pu- 



177 

nishments to old ones. My Lords, this is the 
effect of this bill,— it applies new punishr 
ments to such things only as by the exist- 
ing laws are highly criminal. But it is 
said, and it has been said upon an author 
rity which I ever must revere — upon the 
authority of my noble and learned friend, 
from whom I never differ upon such sub- 
jects without fear and trembling for the 
frailty of my own judgment (I differ from 
him with the more reluctance upon this oc- 
casion, because I know his zeal for the ge- 
neral good order of society : I know that 
neither I nor any of your Lordships can 
go beyond him in the warmth of his at-* 
tachment to his King and to the constitu*- 
tion of his country),— it has been said, my 
Lords, upon his great authority, that the 
penalties of the laws, as they already stand, 
are sufficient for the coercion of such crimes. 
My Lords, how stands the fact ? Has not 

M 



178 



the experiment been made? Have not 
the existing laws, in many recent instan- 
ces, been put in execution? What has 
been the effect ? — A publisher of a sedi- 
tious pamphlet is imprisoned ; and he lives 
at ease in his prison, amassing wealth from 
the profits of the publication for which he 
was imprisoned — from the sale of it in- 
creased by the very circumstance of his 
imprisonment. " Set him in the pillory. " 
The pillory ! The pillory, my Lords, ap- 
plied as a punishment for such crimes, is 
the stepping-stone to glory : Ever since 
Williams mounted it, the printer of the 
" North Briton," it has been the post of 
honour. 

" My Lords, it is with astonishment I 
have heard it said, that the Various sedi- 
tious and blasphemous publications of the 
present day are not likely to produce mis- 
chief. My Lords, what are the springs of 



179 



human actions ? Have the opinions of men 
no influence upon their actions ?— not 
their speculative opinions upon mere ab- 
stract subjects, but their opinions in mo- 
rals, religion, and politics, — have these no 
influence on their actions ? Have these 
publications no tendency to spread opi- 
nions? Are they not circulated for that 
purpose, with great industry, and with too 
sensible an effect? Have not the minds 
of the common people been turned by 
such publications to subjects to which it 
had been better if their minds never had 
been turned ? Have they not been poi- 
soned, with false and pernicious notions ? 
And has not a great change in the de- 
meanour of the lower orders actually been 
produced ? 

" JVIy Lords, in the length of this argu- 
ment, I had almost forgotten to take no- 
tice of what dropped from the noble eari ? 



180 



relating to some supposed transaction of 
my former life. He has told your Lord- 
ships that I was once present at a meeting 
for reform in the borough of Southwark. 
My Lords, I cannot conceive to what the 
noble earl alludes : I hope he will have 
the candour to assist my recollection, by 
specifying occasion, time, and place. I can- 
not recollect that I was ever in my life 
present at a meeting for reform in the bo- 
rough of Southwark, or anywhere else. I 
have never been a great frequenter of pub- 
lic meetings of any kind ; except that late- 
ly I have attended, and taken an active part, 
at meetings in my own county, to consider 
of measures for alleviating the distresses of 
the poor. I well recollect, that some years 
since, when I was a private clergyman, and 
rector of Newington, I attended an elec- 
tion-meeting in Southwark. The noble 
earl will probably think that one of the 



181 



best actions of my life, when I inform him, 
that it wai a meeting of freeholders of 
Surry, who wished to promote an opposi- 
tion, at a general election, to a candidate 
who was supposed to have at that time 
the favour of the Court. But that was 
no meeting for reform, but an election- 
meeting ; and I cannot recollect that I 
was ever present at any other public meet- 
ing, of any sort, in the borough of South- 
wark. If the noble earl can by any circum- 
stances bring it to my recollection that I 
ever was, I will not attempt to dissemble 
the fact : There have been few actions of 
my life that I wish to be concealed." 

The Duke of Bedford rose, and said, 
that he was reconciled to the Bishop's doc- 
trine, that " individuals had nothing to do 
with the laws but to obey them," as he 
had now qualified it : That, had the Bishop 
stated it in the same unqualified manner as 



182 



before, he should have moved to have the 
words taken down; and would^have taken 
the sense of the House upon them : He 
should have thought, in that case, the re- 
verend prelate had deserved the " stepping- 
stone to glory." 

The Bishop of Rochester rose again, 
and said, that the noble duke was mistaken 
if he apprehended that the Bishop now re- 
tracted any part of what he had before ad- 
vanced : That he had not in the former 
debate gone so much at large into the sub- 
ject, — perhaps he had not expressed him- 
self so clearly, and the noble duke might 
not have honoured him with an equal at- 
tention ; but that in the former debate 
he had advanced the assertion under the 
same express reservations : That he would 
be the last man to deny the subject's right 
of petitioning for the redress of grievances ^ 
that he knew that right to be a part of the 



183 



constitution, and would maintain it with 
his latest breath." 

The Duke of Bedford again rose, and 
said, that he now recollected the fact to be as 
the Bishop stated it : That the Bishop had 
made the like reservations of the general 
maxim when he first asserted it ; and had 
even alleged the particular instances of 
the opposition given by the West India 
merchants to the abolition of the slave- 
trade, and that of the manufacturers of 
snuff to the extension of the excise-laws 
to their trade, as instances of a legal oppo- 
sition of subjects to pending laws." 



ON THE ENGLISH MILITIA GOING 
TO IRELAND; 

Juke 19, 1798. 



On the 19th of June 1798, Lord Gren- 
ville laid before the House a message 
from his Majesty, stating, that several re- 
giments of militia had made a voluntary 
tender of their services, in aid of the re- 
gular forces of the kingdom, for suppres- 
sing the rebellion existing in Ireland ; and 
the message recommended to the two 
Houses of Parliament to consider the most 
effectual means to enable his Majesty to 
accept, for a time and to an extent to be 
limited, the services of such militia regi- 
ments. After presenting the message, his 



185 



Lordship moved an address to the King, 
signifying the readiness of the House to 
adopt the measure recommended therein. 
The Earl of Caernarvon moved an amend- 
ment, avoiding any mention of that par- 
ticular measure. Upon this the debate 
was taken ; and the Bishop of Rochester 
spoke as follows. 



" MY LORDS, 

" I never came to this House 
with my mind so much embarrassed with 
doubt and difficulty as upon the present 
question ; for none has arisen, since I 
have had the honour to sit in this assembly, 
in which the collision has been, to my ap- 
prehension, so stout and difficult, between 
the reasons for a measure on the one hand, 
and the objections against it on the other. 
And the thing proposed still appears to me 



186 



so extraordinary, and the crisis so impor- 
tant, that, unwilling as I am to obtrude 
myself on your Lordships upon a question 
of mere secular politics, I cannot persuade 
myself to give my vote without stating to 
your Lordships upon what principles my 
mind, after much doubt and hesitation, is 
at last resolutely made up to the support 
of the measure. 

" My Lords, it cannot be denied that 
the measure, abstractedly considered — con- 
sidered, I mean, in itself, not as connected 
with the particular circumstances of the 
times — is in a high degree unconstitutional: 
It cannot be denied, that it is diametrical- 
ly opposite to the spirit and to the express 
provisions of the militia-laws. These, my 
Lords, are objections certainly of very great 
weight. My Lords, the measure proposed 
must be confessed to be contrary to the 
very sense and meaning of a militia. A 



187 



noble marquis, whom I do not now see in 
his place, whose opinions upon this sub- 
ject are entitled to the highest attention, 
told your Lordships, that the militia is the 
standing garrison of the island of Great 
Britain. My Lords, it cannot be more ac- 
curately described; and the measure in- 
tended is to permit a part of this garrison 
to go out upon a very different service. 
But then, my Lords, what is the occasion ? 
It is not a question, I believe, with any one 
of your Lordships, that a dangerous Jaco- 
binical rebellion is at this moment raging 
in Ireland. Noble lords have said that 
the information has not come to us in the 
proper way, and through the proper chan- 
nel. Some noble lords would have been 
better pleased if the information had been 
brought to the House in such a way as to 
open more matter of debate — to furnish 
more topics of invective against his Majes- 



188 



ty's Ministers. But, my Lords, however 
the information may have come, the fact 
is undisputed ; and the mode of informa- 
tion is a matter of no sort of importance 
in our deliberations upon the measures to 
be taken upon the ground of the admitted 
fact. The fact, the fact disputed by no 
man, is, that a Jacobinical rebellion rages 
in Ireland ; and it is proposed to send away 
a part of our garrison of internal defence 
to assist in the suppression of the rebellion 
in that kingdom. Now, my Lords, I can- 
not in idea separate the safety and preser- 
vation of the kingdom of Ireland, in these 
circumstances, from the safety and preser- 
vation of Great Britain itself : To protect 
Ireland, is to protect Great Britain. My 
Lords, if this Irish rebellion should be suc- 
cessful, there will be no sitting for our 
Sovereign, or not long, upon the throne of 
Great Britain ; there will be no sitting for 



189 



your Lordships to deliberate in this House; 
there will be no rights, no liberties of the 
people, to maintain — no property of any 
man to defend : This militia will be kept 
at home for the defence of nothing ; for 
nothing at home will there be to be de- 
fended. It has been said that the English 
farmer enrols himself in the militia, or 
pays his money for a substitute, conceiving 
that he is contributing his personal service 
or his money for the immediate defence 
and security of his own family, his own 
granaries, his own stock, his own farm- 
house : My Lords, I say that if this Irish 
rebellion is not quashed, the English farm- 
er will have no farm-house, no granaries, 
no stock, no family, to be defended ; his 
family will be butchered, his stock carried 
off, his granaries burnt, his comfortable 
mansion will be made a dunghill : The 
militia, embodied, as it is said, for the 



190 



single purpose of his defence, will be able 
to give him no defence at all. This is 
my notion of the times. We are under 
the dominion of that imperious necessi- 
ty which for the time cancels all consider- 
ation of the laws provided for ordinary 
times — leaves no law subsisting, but that 
sovereign law of the salus populi. My 
Lords, this necessity of quelling the Irish 
rebellion at any rate, I connect with ano- 
ther circumstance clearly proved ; and the 
two together leave no doubt in my mind of 
the expediency of the measure proposed. 
The other circumstance is, that the militia 
is the only force his Majesty can permit to 
go upon this service, consistently with our 
internal security. This appears from the 
statement that has been made to the House 
by the noble Secretary of State ; and his 
statement I regard as the best evidence 
to be had to that fact Some noble lords, 



191 



I know, will not agree with me in this. 
But, my Lords, the noble Secretary of 
State, by his official situation, possesses the 
best information upon that point. He has 
entered, I think, as much into the detail as 
the responsibility of his situation would 
permit. If he has misled me by a false 
statement, he must have wilfully misstated. 
If I conceived him capable of a wilful mis- 
statement, I should think him unfit for his 
situation, and should join the band of his 
opponents : But as long as I think other- 
wise of him — as long as I think him fit 
for the station that he holds, I must cre- 
dit his evidence upon this fact, as the 
best to be had. And, connecting the two 
facts, that a dangerous rebellion subsists in 
Ireland, and that a part of the militia is 
the force that can best be spared for the 
assistance of Ireland, I must support the 
present measure. My Lords, were noble 



192 



lords in earnest, when they said that by 
this measure Parliament would break its 
faith with the people ? My Lords, I do not 
deny, that such acts of Parliament as the 
militia-laws, are, in a certain sense and to 
a certain degree, contracts between the go- 
vernment and the subject : But, my Lords, 
I do maintain that the first of all con- 
tracts between any government and the 
subject is the preservation of the constitu- 
tion, of the independence of the state, 
and the liberties of the people : This is 
that to which first and most of all the faith 
of government is pledged : This is the 
first paramount contract ; all other con- 
tracts are subordinate to this, and must 
give way to it ; all the ordinary operar- 
tions of the laws must be suspended, when 
that great article of public faith the con- 
servation of the public safety cannot be 
kept without the infringement of them. 



193 



My Lords, we are at this moment under 
that necessity, — a necessity which from 
time to time has arisen in all governments ; 
and under it all governments resort to some 
extraordinary means of preservation. All 
the different ways that may be taken may 
be reduced, I think, to two general divi- 
sions. The one is that method which a 
coarse policy, as I think it, suggested in 
the ancient democracies ; which was to 
erect a temporary despotism, — to set up 
a chief magistrate who should be relea- 
sed from all the ordinary restrictions of 
the laws, and have authority to do what- 
ever his own discretion might advise for 
averting the danger of the moment. This 
was what the Roman republic did when 
it created a dictator, or invested the con- 
suls with dictatorial powers; whenever the 
Senate came to the awful vote " Caveant 
consules ne quid detrimenti respublica ca- 

N 



194 



piat" The other, the gentler and the bet- 
ter way, is that which we now take,— that 
the Legislature itself should by its own 
act, in times of great danger, suspend those 
particular restrictions of the laws which fet- 
ter the executive government in the exer- 
tions which the crisis may demand. Up- 
on these principles, my Lords, I shall agree 
to the original motion of the noble Secre- 
tary of State, and vote against the amend- 
ment offered by the noble earl." 

Ml ,$u 1 yd Kid $tU b'jiwnftw?,: #r r?& itoo i I 



UPON THE BILL TO REGULATE THE SLAVE- 
TRADE, WITHIN CERTAIN LIMITS; 

July 5, 1799. 



A bill having been brought into Parlia- 
ment to prohibit the trading in slaves on 
the coast of Africa within certain limits, 
the same was debated in a committee on 
the 5th July 1799; when the Bishop of 
Rochester supported the bill by the fol- 
lowing arguments. 



" MY LORDS, 

" I hope I shall not trespass 
too long upon your time; as I mean to 
confine myself, as far as the course the de~ 



196 



bate has taken will permit, to the narrow 
limits of the question which is immediate- 
ly before the House — the bill upon the 
table ; a subject quite distinct from the 
general question of abolition. Not, my 
Lords, that my mind shrinks from the dif- 
ficulty and magnitude of that general ques- 
tion : The time, I trust, is at no great dis- 
tance, when I shall rise before your Lord- 
ships to arraign the injustice and impolicy 
of that nefarious traffick ; — injustice, my 
Lords, which no considerations of policy 
can extenuate ; impolicy, equal in degree 
to the injustice. And, my Lords, I shall 
not be deterred from going openly into 
this discussion, from the danger supposed 
to attend the measure, and the very agita- 
tion of the question, at this season, arising 
from the particular complexion of the 
times. I know well, my Lords, that the 
advocates for the slave-trade have long 



197 



endeavoured to represent the project of 
abolition as a branch of Jacobinism ; with 
which, my Lords, it is no more connected 
than it is with the religion of the Persees, 
My Lords, we who contend for the abo- 
lition proceed upon no visionary notions 
of equality and imprescriptible rights of 
men ; we strenuously uphold the gra- 
dations of civil society : But we do in- 
deed, my Lords, affirm, that those grada- 
tions both ways, both ascending and de- 
scending, are limited. There is an exor- 
bitance of power to which no good king 
will aspire ; and there is an extreme con- 
dition of subjection to which man cannot 
- without injustice be degraded ; and this, 
we say, is the condition of the African 
carried away into slavery. But, my Lords, 
as to any danger attending the measure of 
abolition at this particular season, I shall 
contend, when that question comes before 



198 



you, that the danger is all on the other 
side ; that the present times imperiously 
demand the abolition 5 that the continu- 
ance of tj^e slave-trade threatens new and 
increased dangers to civil society ; and that 
the continuance of it, rather than the abo- 
lition, is to be dreaded, as a probable means 
of setting a new edge upon the reeking 
knife of St Domingo. 

" But, my Lords, this is not to the pre- 
sent purpose ; the question of abolition is 
not before you : The present bill is only 
to abolish the trade upon a certain portion 
of that coast on the whole of which it is 
at present exercised ; in order to remove 
certain obstacles which the slave-trade car- 
ried on upon that part of the coast throws 
in the way of the colony of Sierra Leone. 
My Lords, the part of the coast upon 
which the bill prohibits the trade is de- 
scribed to be that which lies west of a line 



199 



drawn due north from the southernmost 
part of Cape Palmas. Cape Palmas, your 
Lordships know, is a point upon the coast 
of Africa, where the Grain Coast on the 
west and the Tooth Coast on the east meet 
in an angle. It lies in the latitude of five 
degrees, at least above four and a half de- 
grees, north ; and, as the coast is laid down 
by D'Anville, as nearly as may be under 
the meridian of Gibraltar ; but, according 
to the new map made by Major Rennell 
from Mr Park's Travels, it lies about two 
and a half degrees west of the meridian of 
Gibraltar ; and of course, the line drawn 
due north from this Cape strikes into the 
ocean again a very little to the north of 
Cape Blanco.* This bill therefore, my 



* Not that Cape Blanco which is generally considered as 
the northernmost limit qf the British slave-trade ; but ano- 
ther, much farther to the north, upon the coast of Fez, and 
nearly upon the parallel of the island of Porto Santo. 



200 



Lords, goes to prohibit the trade complete- 
ly upon the whole of what is called the 
Windward Coast. I believe that the ex- 
tent of the coast which the bill will cut off 
was fairly enough stated, by the witnesses 
against the bill, to be three hundred leagues v 
or more, and to make about one third of 
the whole coast on which British ships ex- 
ercise the trade. 

" But, my Lords, we are not to conclude 
that this bill, interdicting the trade on one 
third of the whole extent of coast, goes to 
extinguish one third part of the trade ; it 
is no such thing, my Lords: The propor- 
tion of the trade that will be abolished by 
this bill will be very inconsiderable indeed, 
■ — I believe, indeed, nothing; for, my Lords, 
though the prohibited district is one third 
part of the whole, the proportion of slaves 
from this part of the coast is very small 
Indeed, 



201 



" Mr Olderman told your Lordships, 
that before the war it was one third part of 
the whole ; Mr Branker said that it was 
about one fourth part : But now, my Lords, 
at the present, it is so reduced as to be 
not more than one twentieth part. Mr 
Branker says, the whole number of slaves 
now exported in a year from the coast of 
Africa is fifty-six or fifty-seven thousand ; 
and that of these, not more than four thou- 
sand are taken from the Windward Coast : 
Afterwards, I think, he came down to three 
thousand as the number from the Wind- 
ward Coast ; and by putting together all the 
evidence, — I shall not argue over again in 
detail what has been so clearly stated by 
the noble Secretary of State ; but putting 
all the evidence together, there is no rea- 
son to think that the number now taken 
from the Windward Coast in the year is 
more than two thousand : However, my 



202 



Lords, I will take it at three thousand, the 
mean between Mr Branker's greatest num- 
ber and my least; and then your Lord- 
ships see, the total being by Mr Branker's 
evidence fifty-six or fifty-seven thousand, 
the share of the Windward Coast will be 
very nearly one twentieth* One twentieth 
therefore, my Lords, is the utmost propor- 
tion of the trade which this bill will abo- 
lish. But, my Lords, I say it will not do 
so much as that ; it will not abolish an 
atom of the general trade. 

" The witnesses have said that the re- 
duction of the trade upon the Windward 
Coast has been owing to the war. I do 
not believe it : There are many facts, in 
the comparison of the slave-trade of this 
country with that of other nations, which 
prove that the war can have had no such 
operation. But, my Lords, from some 
cause or other, aiyl I care not from what* 



203 



the trade upon the Windward Coast has 
been reduced almost to nothing. But, my 
Lords, it appears from the evidence (from 
the evidence against the bill ; for upon that 
I build my whole argument), that, whilst 
the trade has been thus sinking upon the 
Windward Coast, it has been growing upon 
the Leeward ; for the whole annual num- 
ber of fifty-six or fifty-seven thousand very 
greatly exceeds the total of the annual ex- 
port before the reduction on the Windward 
Coast. Now, my Lords, since I find in fact, 
that the reduction upon the Windward Coast, 
from whatever cause it has proceeded, has 
been accompanied with such an increase of 
the trade in the other part as has vastly 
overbalanced the deficit from that reduc- 
tion, — have I not a right to conclude, that 
any farther diminution which may be pro- 
duced to windward by this bill will be more 
than overpaid by an increase upon the un*- 



204 



prohibited parts; and so the total of the 
trade will remain at least undiminished ? 
My Lords, if this be a just conclusion, — and 
I am sure it is the just and necessary con- 
clusion from the evidence, — if any policy 
—the contrary is my opinion ; but if any po- 
licy persuade the continuance of the trade, 
there is nothing in this bill contrary to 
such policy ; for this bill leaves the trade, 
in its generality, such as it finds it. 

" My Lords, if any humanity calls for 
the continuance of the trade (for such an 
argument has been attempted), this bill 
cramps not the generous efforts of that hu- 
manity ; for not a slave less, upon the 
whole, will be taken in the year from one 
part or another of Africa. 

" My Lords, I heard with joy and satis- 
faction the statement, made by great au- 
thority, of the prosperity of the West India 
Islands : I rejoice that the empire posses- 



205 



ses such a fund of wealth in that quarter. 
But, my Lords, if the prosperity of the 
West India Islands is at all connected with 
the slave-trade, — if it depends upon the 
numbers annually exported from Africa, — 
it will not be in the smallest degree endan- 
gered by this bill ; by which the slave-trade 
will not be affected, the numbers will riot 
be abridged. And so the West India plant- 
ers themselves seem to think, by the per- 
fect indifference they have shown about 
this bill. Do your Lordships imagine you 
have had the great body of West India 
planters at your bar, petitioning against 
the bill ? — No such thing, my Lords. We 
had something like a petition from the 
single island of Jamaica : The gentleman 
residing here in the character of agent for 
that island presented a petition against the 
bill. A learned counsel appeared for that 
petition at the bar, and he produced wit- 



206 



nesses : And much was I astonished at the 
sort of witnesses he produced, — I was quite 
puzzled with it. Three witnesses were 
called. The first was a gentleman who 
told your Lordships he had resided in Ja- 
maica twenty years : He had an estate of 
his own ; and he managed some other * 
estates : For his own estate, he had pur- 
chased, in the twenty years, two hundred 
slaves in all; and of these two hundred, 
eleven were purchased as slaves from the 
Windward Coast ; but he was cheated in 
two of them, for two of the eleven turned 
out not to be from the Windward Coast : 
He had therefore purchased in all, in the 
space of twenty years, nine slaves from 
the Windward Coast, and no more. This 
seemed to me an extraordinary evidence to 
prove the importance of the import from 
the Windward Coast to the island of Ja- 
maica. The second of the three witnesses 



207 



Had resided some time in Jamaica, not as £ 
planter, but as a merchant : He had re^ 
sided in that part of the island where he 
had the least opportunity of acquiring any 
knowledge of the import ; for he resided 
in the north part of the island : He had 
been concerned in the sale of three car- 
goes, and no more ; and from what part of 
the coast of Africa the slaves sent to Ja- 
maica might come, or what proportion 
might come from the Windward Coast, he 
told your Lordships plainly he knew no- 
thing. The last witness of the three was 
called only to prove the present average 
price of a prime slave in the island of Ja- 
maica ; and he was not asked a single 
question about the import. 

" My Lords, I was very much astonish- 
ed at this sort of evidence. One witness 
proved that the proportion of Windward 
slaves purchased by him was next to no- 



208 



thing ; and a second could give your Lord- 
ships no information at all upon the sub- 
ject of the import ; and the third was not 
called to that point. I very much suspect- 
ed some mystery lay at the bottom of this. 
My Lords, the mystery was soon cleared 
up, when the log-books were exhibited; 
for by them it appears that the slaves from 
the Windward Coast in general are not 
carried to Jamaica, but to other islands ; 
and one of the slave-captains, when he 
spoke of the preference given to the Wind- 
ward Coast slaves, excepted the island of 
Jamaica, — where, he said, the slaves from 
Bonney are preferred. My Lords, they are 
so much preferred, that the Jamaica plant- 
ers refuse the Windward Coast cargoes ; 
they w T ill not take slaves from the Wind- 
ward, if they can procure those of another 
part. The island of Jamaica, therefore, 
is not at all interested in the event of this 



209 



bill, since the trade which it will cut off 
makes no part of the supply of that island ; 
and yet this island of Jamaica, which can- 
not in any way be affected by the bill, is 
the only one of the West India Islands 
that has petitioned against it. My Lords, 
I have a right to conclude, that the great 
body of the West India planters are not 
adverse to this bill ; and if they are not 
adverse to it, it must be because they are 
sensible that their supply will not be di- 
minished by it. 

" Then, my Lords, for the good town of 
Liverpool, — if the prosperity of Liverpool 
depends upon the slave-trade, it will not 
be affected by this bill ; which will leave 
the slave-trade, in its total amount, just as 
it found it. 

" But your Lordships have been told 
that this bill, professing only to abolish 
the trade within certain limits, in effect 

o 



210 



will destroy the whole trade, by the dif- 
ficulties which will be laid upon it; for 
it is pretended, that ships cannot trade 
even to the Leeward Coast without taking 
in provisions upon the Windward Coast. 
My Lords, the answer is very short and 
very plain : I shall state it very briefly - y 
for it has been well stated in detail by the 
noble Secretary of State. The answer is, 
my Lords, first, that if the allegation were 
true, that provisions must be taken in up- 
on the Windward Coast, this bill forbids 
not but that any ship may stop upon the 
Windward Coast for the purpose of taking 
in provisions ; but, secondly, my Lords, the 
allegation, though made by witnesses upon 
oath, is false — -absolutely false, my Lords : 
The oaths of these witnesses are falsified 
by the deposition of the log-books. A 
ship's log-book, your Lordships know, is 
the authentic record of the occurrences 



211 

of her voyage, which must bear down all 
other evidence ; and by the log-books up- 
on the table, or rather by an extract from 
the log-books, given in by consent by the 
counsel on both sides, it appears, that out 
of one hundred ships which sailed from the 
port of Liverpool to the Leeward Coast 
in the years 1791 and 1797, one ship only 
— yes, my Lords — one ship only out of one 
hundred took in provisions upon the Wind- 
ward Coast. 

" So much for that part of the case. 
Again, it is pretended, that the bill prohi- 
bits the trade in that part where it may be 
prosecuted with the greatest advantage ; 
that the time of the voyage from the Wind- 
ward Coast to the west is shorter in a very 
great proportion than the time of the pas- 
sage from the Leeward Coast ; and that, in 
consequence of the brevity of the voyage, 



212 



the mortality is less and the slaves arrive 
in better health. This, my Lords, would 
be a consideration of great importance, 
were it true ; but it is all pretence and 
fiction. My Lords, in exposing the false- 
hood, I shall not avail myself in argument 
of the vile deception which these witnes- 
ses upon oath audaciously attempted to 
practise upon this House, by smuggling 
the time of the tedious delay upon the 
Windward Coast to collect the cargoes. 
The cargoes are not collected but in a long 
time upon the Windward, — upon the Lee- 
ward Coast they are completed presently; 
and when the time of detention upon the 
coast is added to the time of the Middle 
Passage, the voyage from the Windward 
turns out to be the longest of the two ; and 
if the quickest voyages are the most heal- 
thy, the voyages from the Leeward, as the 



213 



noble Secretary of State most justly argued, 
ought to be the healthiest. But, my Lords^ 
I wave this : I will take the comparative 
length of the voyage (I mean the length in 
time) as they themselves have stated it ; 
and I will show your Lordships, that this 
pretended healthiness of the passage from 
the Windward Coast is all a fallacy. My 
Lords, I assert, — confidently and hardily I 
make the assertion, and I challenge con- 
futation ; let any one who will take the 
trouble to follow me in the calculations 
upon which I am about to enter confute me 
if he can, — I do assert, my Lords, that the 
very healthiest of their ships are nothing 
better than pestilential gaols ! I assert, 
that in the healthiest of their ships, upon 
their shortest passages, the rate of morta- 
lity is enormous — the waste of human life 
prodigious, monstrous, shocking to the 



214 



imagination ! This, my Lords, I assert ; 
and I will prove my assertion by their own 
statements. 

" My Lords, Mr Robert Hume made 
several voyages from different parts of the 
coast of Africa to the West Indies ; and 
he has given his account, upon his oath, 
of the time of each voyage, the total of his 
cargo, and the number of the deaths in 
each. My Lords, in the year 1792, Mr 
Robert Hume made a voyage from the 
Windward Coast to Jamaica. He made 
it in thirty-three days ; he shipped upon 
the coast of Africa two hundred and sixty- 
five slaves ; and twenty-three died in the 
Middle Passage. Twenty-three, my Lords, 
out of two hundred and sixty-five, in thirty- 
three days. Thirty-three days are, as near- 
ly as may be, one eleventh of a year ; and 
eleven times twenty-three is two hundred 



215 



and fifty-three ; and this would have been 
his loss by death, had the passage lasted a 
whole year, — two hundred and fifty-three 
out of two hundred and sixty-five : The 
man would have lost within a very few of 
his whole cargo. 

" Now, my Lords, your Lordships know, 
that the importation of slaves above the 
age of twenty-five is prohibited, in the West 
Indies, by the colonial laws. I must there- 
fore assume, that this cargo of Mr Robert 
Hume's, and other cargoes which I shall 
have occasion to mention, was composed 
of persons not above the age of twenty-five 
years. My Lords, in this town of Lon- 
don, the rate of mortality, by the most ap- 
proved tables which all calculators use, is 
not, at the age of twenty-five, more than 
seventeen in one thousand in the year : 
Out of one thousand persons living, of the 
age of twenty-five, seventeen and no more 



216 

die in the town of London in a year ; — in 
Mr Hume's ship, two hundred and fifty- 
three, my Lords, out of two hundred and 
sixty-five.* 

" My Lords, in the year 1795, Mr Ro- 
bert Hume made a voyage from the Gold 
Coast to St Vincent's. The mortality was 
nothing like that of the former voyage : 
And this is one curious instance, in confir- 
mation of what was argued by the noble 
Secretary of State, that, when the deposi- 
tions of these gentlemen are properly cor- 
rected, by supplying material circumstances 
which they, witnesses upon oath, conceal- 
ed, the voyages from the Leeward Coast 
turn out to be the healthiest. So it was, 
nry Lords, upon the comparison of these 



* Which would be nine hundred and fifty-five out of one 
thousand. The mortality therefore of tin's ship was to the 
mortality of London as nine hundred and fifty-five to seven- 
teen, — that is, rather more than as fifty-six to one. 



217 

two voyages of Mr Hume, — his voyage to 
Jamaica in 1792, and this voyage to St Vin- 
cent's in 1795 : The latter, though from 
the Leeward Coast, was far the healthiest. 
And yet, even in this healthier voyage, the 
rate of mortality was enormous. The car- 
go consisted of two hundred and fifteen 
slaves ; the vessel was seven weeks and 
four days in her passage ; and the deaths* 
in that time, Mr Hume said, were three 
or four. Three or four died, out of two 
hundred and fifteen, in seven weeks and 
four days. Seven weeks and four days 
make about one seventh of the whole year ; 
and seven times three or four is twenty-one 
or twenty-eight ; the mean, in round num- 
bers, is twenty-four : Twenty-four there- 
fore would have died out of the two hun- 
dred and fifteen, if the ship had been the 
whole year upon the Middle Passage: 



218 



Twenty-four therefore out of two hundred 
and fifteen* w r as the rate of mortality in 
this ship ; the rate at London, for persons 
of the like age, being only seventeen in 
one thousand. 

" In the year 1796, Mr Hume made a 
voyage from Cape Mount to Jamaica, in 
thirty-one days. His whole cargo was 
two hundred and thirty ; of which one 
only died in the Middle Passage. One 
out of two hundred and thirty in thirty-one 
days ; again, my Lords, an enormous rate 
of mortality. Take the thirty-one days as 
a month : Then twelve out of two hun- 
dred and thirty in the year was the rate 



* Twenty-fbur out of two hundred and fifteen is at the 
Fate of one hundred and eleven out of one thousand : There- 
fore the mortality of this ship was to that of London (at 
the assumed age of twenty-five) as one hundred and eleven 
to seventeen, — or as six and a half to one nearly. 



219 



of mortality in this ship ; instead of seven- 
teen out of one thousand, the London 
rate.* 

" I shall trouble your Lordships with 
but one instance more ; and that shall be 
the instance of the ship Plumper of Liver- 
pool. Your Lordships are already well 
acquainted with the story of the Plumper. 
Your Lordships will recollect, — it is in 
evidence, — that there is a great peculiarity 
in the negro constitution ; that it is parti- 
cularly conducive to the health of the ne- 
gro to be close shut up in foul air. This 
is death to us white men, as we know by 
the experiment of the Black-Hole, and 
other tragical instances ; but for your ne- 



* Twelve cut of two hundred and thirty is at the rate of 
fifty-two nearly out of one thousand : Therefore the mor- 
tality of this ship was to that of London as fifty-two to 
seventeen, — that is, rather more than three to one, 



220 



gro, it is the reverse : Keep him but hot 
enough, he will always do well ; and the 
better, the more you try to stifle him. 
Now, my Lords, the good ship Plumper 
was built upon this very principle ; and 
the extraordinary healthiness of her voyage 
was alleged as a fact, to evince the folly of 
the regulations we have made to prevent 
the negro from being poisoned in the Mid- 
dle Passage, as we idly fear, in the steams 
of his own person. In the Plumper, care 
was taken that the slaves should have no 
room to stir or breathe : She was a single- 
decked ship ; and the height in the hold 
was no more than two feet seven inches : 
In this vessel, one hundred and forty slaves 
were stowed ; and of these there died in 
the passage only two. Two out of one 
hundred and forty. The time of the 
passage is not stated in Mr Coxe's ac- 



221 



count :* But it appears that the vessel was 
small, — I think not exceeding eighty-four 
tons burden, but I am sure under ninety 
ton:f These small vessels, your Lordships 
know, are not employed in the Leeward 
Coast trade ; they are sent only to the 
Windward Coast : I have a right, therefore, 
to assume, that this small vessel slaved up- 
on the Windward Coast ; and I shall deal 
very fairly by her, if I allow for the time 
of her Middle Passage what has been stated 
by the witnesses to be the average time 
of the Middle Passage from the Windward 
Coast to the West Indies. Novy, my Lords, 
one of the witnesses, Mr John Older man, 
an experienced slave-captain, has told you, 
that the passage from the Isle de Los to 



* This is a paper given in at the bar, as part of the evi- 
dence for the petitions against the slave-carrying bill ; and 
is to be found in the printed minutes of that evidence. 

f Eighty-four was the tonnage, 



222 



Barbadoes is made in twenty-one or eighteen 
days, — from the river Gambia to Barba- 
does, in fifteen days ; but the average of 
the passage from the Windward Coast to 
the West Indies, he states at thirty days. 
Allowing therefore this average time, thirty 
days, to the ship Plumper for her Middle 
Passage, it was in thirty days that two of 
her slaves died out of one hundred and 
forty. Two in thirty days, or one month, 
is twenty-four in the whole year : Twenty- 
four, therefore, out of one hundred and for- 
ty in the year, was the rate of mortality in 
this ship ; instead of seventeen out of one 
thousand, the London rate.* Part of this 
excessive mortality is, I doubt not, to be 



* Twenty-four out of one hundred and forty is rather 
more than one hundred and seventy-one out of a thousand. 
The mortality of this ship, therefore, was to that of London 
as one hundred and seventy-one to seventeen, — that is, more 
than as ten to one. 



223 

ascribed to the provision that was made, 
in the construction of the vessel, to secure 
to the negroes the full advantage of the 
want of air : But upon this circumstance 
I lay no stress ; — I maintain, that when 
the rate of mortality is examined upon 
true principles, it is so enormous, in the 
very best of their vessels, that when we 
talk of a healthy slave-ship, we talk of a 
nonentity ; there is no such thing. And 
no certain proportion can be found be- 
tween the comparative healthiness of one 
voyage and another ; but making the best 
comparison we can, and taking into the ac- 
count the numbers that die in the Wind- 
ward trade before they quit the coast, the 
result would be in favour of the Leeward. 

" My Lords, with respect to the reduc- 
tion that has taken place in the export 
from the Windward Coast, the witnesses 
pronounce that the war is the cause of it ; 



224 



and they say, that some time or other, 
though in what future year of our Lord 
they cannot tell, a peace will come ; and 
when the peace comes, the trade upon the 
Windward Coast, if this bill should not 
pass into a law, will revive. My Lords, I 
say, that at best this is but prophecy ; and 
we have had abundant experience, that 
when these gentlemen pretend to prophe- 
cy, their predictions are generally falsified 
by the event : But I say, that without any 
revival of the trade upon the Windward, 
which I hope and trust will never be, we 
have the highest reason to believe that the 
deficit apprehended from the prohibitions 
of this bill will be more than made up by 
the growth of the trade on the remaining 
part of the coast. Now, my Lords, since 
the diminution of the trade upon the whole, 
by the operation of this bill, will be no- 
thing, — since neither the interests of the 



225 



slave-trade itself, nor the supply of the 
West India Islands, nor the trade of Liver- 
pool, can possibly be affected by this no- 
diminution, — since the inconveniences ap- 
prehended from the proposed limitation, 
by reason of the necessity of touching at 
the Windward Coast for provisions, — since 
the greater length of the Middle Passage 
from the Leeward Coast — the greater un- 
healthiness of the voyage, — since all this is 
mere pretence, falsehood, fiction, and de- 
lusion, — J ask your Lordships, whether the 
objects of the Sierra Leone Company are 
not such as in some degree merit your aU 
tention ? 

" The grand object of the Sierra Leone 
Company is to establish a fair and friendly 
commerce with the Africans ; and, by that, 
means, to spread the light of knowledge, 
divine and human, in that country, and 
gradually to forward its civilization. That 



226 



these objects cannot be obtained while thg 
slave-trade is carried on in the neighbour- 
hood of the colony, is manifest. By exclu- 
ding the slave-trade from that neighbour- 
hood, the trade itself will suffer nothing ; 
the benevolent designs of the Sierra Leoiie 
Company will be forwarded. Much pains 
have been used, my Lords, to make this 
colony contemptible ; from the low state of 
their finances, the narrow extent of their 
trade, and the little progress they have 
hitherto made in their great project of in- 
structing and civilizing Africa : But, my 
Lords, when I consider the difficulties the 
Sierra Leone colony has had to struggle 
with, my wonder is, not that it is not more 
flourishing, but that it exists at this mo- 
ment—not that its progress is so small, 
but that it should be any thing. All in-* 
fant colonies have difficulties ; but the difc 
Acuities of this colony have been unusually 



227 



great; — the dreadful sickness which in the 
first year swept off so many of the first 
settlers ; the destruction and pillage of 
their town by the French ; but most of all, 
my Lords, the untoward materials they 
had to work upon, ill the formation of the 
colony itself. The first colonists were the 
blacks from Nova Scotia : These were a 
set of people of the very worst disposi- 
tions, — averse to labour, debauched, re- 
fractory, untractable : My Lords, it is no 
small argument of the good effects that 
may be expected from this colony, that 
these are now, by the good management 
of the Company, quite an altered race, — 
sober, industrious, orderly. But, my Lords, 
we have still a stronger argument of what 
this colony may do, in the change for the 
better which in some small degree has 
taken place in * the manners of the slave- 
traders in their neighbourhood. My Lords, 



228 



it is easy to understand, that your slave- 
trader must be an animal more difficult to 
tame than the mere savage : The slave- 
trader is something very different from the 
savage man ; he is the man barbarized, — 
not untaught, like the savage ; but, ac- 
quainted with civil life, and with powers 
of intellect considerably improved, he uses 
his improved intellect only to be the slave 
of his avarice, and to overpower all those 
generous sympathies of our nature which 
might be obstacles to its pursuits ; he has 
eradicated in his own bosom all the vir- 
tuous feelings of the savage ; he has im- 
bibed all that is evil in the policy of civil 
life. Yet the Sierra Leone Company has 
succeeded in somewhat softening the loath- 
some asperity of the manners of these bar- 
barians. 

" But, my Lords, there remains one 
principal argument brought against the 



229 



Ijill, of which I have not yet taken notice. 
However inconsiderable the number of the 
slaves may be of which it will deprive the 
trade, it is said the bill will deprive it of 
its best slaves ; and in this respect, the 
loss, however it may be made up in point 
of number, in value cannot be compensa- 
ted by the supply from other parts ; for, 
with the exception of some taken from the 
Gold Coast, the slaves procured upon the 
Windward Coast, the witnesses say, are the 
very best of all. And why are they the 
best, my Lords ? — They are the best, not 
only because they are the healthiest and 
the strongest, but because they are the fit-, 
test for field-labour ; they are the most 
tractable, docile, and submissive ; they are 
easily trained to many parts of the business 
of a ship ; they easily learn the use of 
small-arms, and to work the great-guns 
with so mueh dexterity, that two of the 



230 

slave-captains have told your Lordships 
they have fought their ships with cargoes 
of these slaves. One of the two, in 1796, 
commander of the Jemmy of Liverpool, 
with only eight white men aboard, but with 
two hundred and nineteen slaves from 
Cape Mount, engaged a French privateer, 
and beat her off. The other, in 1779, his 
ship's company being forty-two whites, 
•with one hundred and fifty Windward 
Coast slaves in arms, chased a large French 
privateer into Aux Cayes, in St Domingo ; 
when another ship of the enemy, of equal 
force, lay a few miles to leeward. My 
Lords, while these Africans were upon 
military duty, they were permitted to as- 
sume the appearance of men and of sol- 
diers ; they were armed and dressed like 
the other men : What became of them, 
my Lords, when the service was perform- 
ed ? — My Lords, they were divested of the 



231 



arras which they had so bravely used in the 
defence of the ships of this country against 
the King's enemies ; they were divested of 
their clothing ; they were stripped stark 
naked, my Lords, — these men, who had 
saved our vessels from the enemy ! they 
were exposed to sale, naked slaves, in the 
slave-markets of the West Indies ! My 
Lords, what were your feelings when this 
shameful tale was told? I will tell your 
Lordships what my feelings were — what 
they are at this moment : I would rather 
have been one of the Africans which were 
so sold, than either of the British slave- 
captains (I lament, my Lords, that I must 
call them Britons) who sold their valiant 
comrades in arms ! 

" But, my Lords, the circumstance to 
which I would principally direct your at- 
tention is this, — this fitness for field-labour, 
this tractability, this docility of disposition, 



) 

232 

these, wherever they are found, are certain 
marks of at least incipient civilization ; and 
the Windward Coast slaves, in whom these 
marks of incipient civizilation, by the tes- 
timony of these witnesses, appear, are for 
that reason the very persons whom the 
slave-trade, upon its own principles, ought 
to spare. My Lords, when the slave-trade 
attempts to defend itself, as it does, upon 
the ground of humanity, it is upon this 
pretence, — that the natives of Africa are 
in that state of barbarism from which it is 
impossible they should ever spontaneously 
emerge : They pretend, therefore, that it 
is charity to these people to tear them from 
their native soil, and transport them to 
those Hesperides of the blacks, where their 
condition, though bad enough, will yet be 
something better, in some small degree 
nearer to that of civil life, than it ever 
could be if they remained in their own 



233 



country. My Lords, if the assumption 
were true, I know not that the conclusion 
would be just. My Lords, a learned coun- 
sel at the bar took upon him to argue the 
policy of public measures ; he took upon 
him to instruct your Lordships in your le- 
gislative duty ; he admonished your Lord- 
ships to beware how you would attempt to 
alter by force the moral and political state 
of man. My Lords, I agree with the 
learned counsel in the general maxim ; — 
the moral and political state of man is 
ordered by Providence ; and any attempt 
of man forcibly to alter and amend it is a 
presumptuous interference in a matter that 
belongs to Providence : But, my Lords, 
upon the slave-trade I charge the guilt of 
that presumption. If the natives of Africa 
are in that abject state of barbarism which 
the slave-merchants allege, I say that Pro- 
vidence has placed them in it •> and what 



234 



has the slave-trade to do with His dispensa^ 
tions ? Whatever the present condition of 
these Africans may be, I am confident that 
the merciful God, who has cast their pre- 
sent lot so low, will, in his own good time, 
without the interference of the slave-trade, 
raise them to the full state and dignity of 
man. Let the slave-trade leave the work 
to Him ; it is no concern of theirs. But if 
the plea that they set up were better than 
it is as applied to Africa in general, their 
argument fails them on the Windward 
Coast : The slaves procured there are not 
in the state of hopeless barbarism they 
describe ; by their own showing, among 
these people the work of civilization is be- 
gun. And think, my Lords, how far, over 
what a length of country, this incipient ci- 
vilization must extend. The slaves pro- 
cured upon this Windward Coast are not 
the natives of the coast itself ; they are 



235 



brought down from remote parts of the in- 
terior country. The witnesses have told 
jour Lordships, that these people reckon 
their time by moons ; and describe the 
time that they are travelling to the coast 
as five, six, seven, and sometimes eignt 
moons ; and the witnesses guess that their 
rate of travelling may be fifteen miles per 
day. I will take six moons as the time of 
the journey ; and I will suppose they tra- 
vel only twelve miles per day : Twelve 
miles per day, for six months together, 
makes a journey of two thousand one hun- 
dred and twenty-four British miles ; and 
so many British miles, upon the parallel 
of the middle latitude of the Windward 
Coast, make thirtv-one and a half degrees 
longitude ; and thirty-one degrees of lon- 
gitude eastward from the middle of the 
Windward Coast carry us into the very 
heart of Africa^ in the broadest part. And 



236 



throughout this long tract of country, the 
natives, by the evidence of the witnesses 
themselves, bear the marks of incipient ci- 
vilization. But, my Lords, by the relation 
of Mr Park, on which I rely more than on 
the united testimony of all these witnesses, 
through the whole extent of this country, 
civilization is much more than incipient. 
Through this very country the line of Mr 
Park's journey lay ; and, my Lords, you 
cannot travel half a day with Mr Park, in the 
whole route from Pisania to the very extre-. 
mity of that line, but you find all the way 
the pleasing vestiges of a civilization that 
has already made some progress, and is 
heightening every step you go the farther 
you get inland from the coast, — that is, the 
farther you recede from the stage on which 
the slave-trade perpetrates its horrors. My 
Lords, Mr Park not only speaks in general 
terms of the growing civilization of these 



237 



people, but he mentions many particulars, 
from which your Lordships may form your 
own judgment. My Lords, he thus de- 
scribes the dress of the Mandingoes : 
" Both sexes dress in cotton cloth of their 
own manufacture : The men wear a loose 
frock with drawers half-way down the leg, 
sandals on their feet, white cotton caps on 
their heads the women, a petticoat of the 
same material, with a sort of mantle cast 
over the shoulders." My Lords, is this 
the dress of savages ? — is there not evi- 
dently a degree of elegance and neatness 
in it ? Speaking of their manners, he says 
" They are industrious in agriculture and 
pasturage: They manufacture cotton cloths,, 
and coloured leathers ; they smelt iron ; 
they smelt gold ; they draw gold wire, of 
which they form various ornaments." My 
Lords, are these the occupations of bar- 
barians? My Lords, they are not desti- 



23S 



tute of moral principle : The first les- 
son, says Mr Park, a Mandingo woman 
teaches her child, is the practice of truth i 
The lamentation of a miserable mother 
over her son, murdered by a Moorish ban- 
ditti, was, that in the course of his blame- 
less life, " her boy had never told a lie, no 
never ! " Towards strangers, he says, they 
are of a mild and obliging disposition. 
Having mentioned their habit of pilfering 
(which although a mark of imperfect civi- 
lization, your Lordships are too well read 
in history not to know is no mark of bar- 
barism), he adds — " To counterbalance this 
depravity in their nation, it is impossible 
for me to forget the disinterested charity 
and tender solicitude with which these 
poor heathen sympathized with me in my 
sufferings, relieved my distresses, and con- 
tributed to my safety. In so free and kind 
a manner (speaking of the women in parti- 



cular)" —My Lords, there is nothing in 

this to provoke the laugh of levity : Mr 
Park's is a simple, but a serious, sober nar- 
rative ; the freedom of which he speaks was 
not the freedom of wantonness, as those 
who laugh must be supposed to understand 

it " In so free and kind a manner did 

they (the women) contribute to my relief, 
that if I was dry, I drank the sweetest 
draught, if hungry, I ate the coarsest mor- 
sel, with a double relish." Then, my 
Lords, of their domestic attachments and 
affections among themselves, he gives many 
striking instances. Your Lordships, I am 
sure, must recollect the affecting story of 
the return of the blacksmith of Kasson to 
his native village. — By the w T ay, my Lords, 
I must ask, is this a character of savage 
manners, — that a young man goes from his 
home to a distant country, to find profi- 
table employment in a trade ? — But the 



240 



story of the return, my Lords, after an ab- 
sence of some years ! His brother meets 
him on the road, and brings out a sing- 
ing-man to sing him into the village ; he 
brings a horse to mount him upon, that he 
Inay enter the town in a respectable man- 
ner : At the entrance of the village, his 
arrival is welcomed by a concourse of the 
people ; his mother, blind with age, sup- 
porting her tottering steps upon her staff, 
is led out to meet him ; the crowd re- 
spectfully make way for her ; she shows 
the strongest emotions of joy and mater- 
nal affection, when she is satisfied, by feel- 
ing his person with her hands, that he is 
indeed her very son. Mr Park concludes 
the interesting narrative with this remark, 
that " from this interview he w as fully con- 
vinced, that whatever difference there is 
between the negro and European in the 
formation of the nose and the colour of the 



241 



skin, there is none in the genuine sympa- 
thies and characteristic feeling of our com- 
mon nature." These, my Lords, are the 
people which the slave-trade, in defiance 
of its own principles, makes its victims on 
the Windward Coast,— because, forsooth, 
they are the best of slaves ! Their civili- 
zation is already in its progress, and needs 
not the assistance of the slave-trade. 

" My Lords, shall I be told " Imagine 
what civility you please, slavery is the 
birth-right of the African ; and we remove 
him only from slavery in one place to 
slavery in another?" — My Lords, slavery 
is a word of very large indefinite meaning, 
comprehending a variety of conditions, in 
fact very different from one another, under 
a common name. My Lords, I believe it 
really is the case, — the thing is so repre- 
sented by two travellers of great credit ; by 
Mr Watt, who not long since made his 

0. 



242 



way from Sierra Leone into the Foolali 
Country ; and just now by Mr Park, who 
has penetrated much farther, — I admit that 
it is the case, that in that part of Africa of 
which I have been speaking, not more than 
one fourth part of the inhabitants are of 
free condition ; the other three fourths are 
slaves. But, my Lords, of what sort is the 
African slavery in Africa ? — My Lords, it 
seems at this moment perfectly analogous 
to the slavery of the heroic and the pa- 
triarchal ages ; when the slave and the 
freeborn lived so much upon a footing 
that you could hardly distinguish the one 
from the other, — when the Princess Nau- 
sicaa took a part in the labour of her fe- 
male slaves — and the slave-girls, when the 
common task was finished, were the play- 
mates of the Princess, — when Abraham's 
confidential slave, sent to choose a wife for 
his master's eldest son, found the lady de- 



243 



signed by Providence to be joined in mar- 
riage to so sreat a man as Isaac, in the la- 
borious office of drawing water for her fa- 
ther's cattle — and the slave of Abraham 
that came upon this happy errand was re- 
ceived by the parents of the bride with all 
the respect and hospitality with which they 
could have received his master. My Lords, 
the indigenous slavery of Africa is of this 
kind. The witnesses have told you, that 
persons not well acquainted with the coun- 
try would mistake the domestic slaves for 
free persons : There is no external distinc- 
tion ; they are dressed alike, they are fed 
alike, they are lodged alike, and they are 
all employed alike ; the slave is not treat- 
ed with rigour nor punished with severity ; 
the master cannot legally sell his domestic 
slave, unless for crime, and with the con- 
sent and approbation of the family. This 
is the description which your Lordships 



244 



have received of the African slavery from 
the witnesses examined at your bar upon 
the present occasion : It is the same in 
substance as was given some years since 
by different persons examined before the 
House of Commons ; and it is confirmed 
by the relations of Mr Watt and Mr Park. 
My Lords, it is absurd to compare this 
sort of slavery with that to which the slave- 
trade consigns the African : No two things 
can be more unlike ; they agree in nothing 
but the name, 

" My Lords, I have trespassed much 
longer than I thought to do upon the in- 
dulgence of the House ; and I could wish 
to abstain entirely, as I at first proposed, 
from every thing relating to the subject of 
general abolition, without any immediate 
bearing upon the particular question of 
this bill. But, my Lords, an argument 
was set up at the bar, and applied to the 



245 



present bill, — though, in my judgment, it 
more belonged to the general question, — of 
such a sort, that it might not become the 
holy robe I wear were I to let it pass un- 
noticed. 

" My Lords, the learned counsel who 
replied to the summing up of the learn- 
ed counsel for the Sierra Leone Company 
said, that if the slave-trade were the wicked 
sinful thing which those who would abolish 
it conceive it to be, it is very strange there 
should be no prohibition, no reprobation 
of slavery, in the Holy Scriptures either of 
the Old or New Testament. The learned 
counsel evidently wished your Lordships 
to conclude, that the slave-trade is at least 
not condemned, if not sanctioned, by re- 
ligion. My Lords, that learned counsel 
has studied his law-books with more cri- 
tical "accuracy than his Bible, or he never 
would have been the great and able lawyer 



246 



that he is ; he would have been no better 
lawyer than he is divine, — that is to say, 
he would have been a very bad one. 

" My Lords, the sentiments of a right 
reverend prelate,' while he lived a dear 
and valued friend of mine,* have been cit- 
ed in this night's debate, as if they had in 
some degree coincided with those of the 
learned counsel upon the subject. True it 
is, that about the time when the question 
of abolition first began to be agitated, the 
right reverend prelate let fall something in 
a sermon, about a danger which he ap- 
prehended might arise from exciting the 
public mind upon the subject of the slave- 
trade, while it was protected by the laws, 
and while the matter was under the exa- 
mination of the Privy Council. I confess 



* Dr Samuel Hallifax, Lord Bishop of Gloucester, af- 
terwards of St Asaph. . 



247 

that I neyer saw that danger ; and I am 
confident, were the right reverend prelate 
among us now, his sentiments upon the 
scriptural part of the argument would not 
be very different from mine. Be that as 
it may, I am confident, that in what I am 
about to deliver upon that subject, I shall 
have the concurrence of my right reverend 
brethren near me* 

" My Lords, I do certainly admit, that 
there is no prohibition of slavery in the 
Bible, in explicit terms, — such as these 
would be, " Thou shalt not have a slave," 
or " Thou shalt not hold any one in slave- 
ry ;ff there is no explicit reprobation of 
slavery by name. My Lords, if I were to 
say that there was no occasion for any 
such prohibition or reprobation, because 
slavery is condemned by something an- 
terior either to the Christian or the Mosaic 
dispensation, I could support the assertion 



248 



by grave authorities, — not the authorities 
of the new-fashioned advocates of the 
rights of men, — not such authorities as 
Vattei or Tom Payne. My Lords, what 
is the definition of slavery in the Impe- 
rial Institutes? — " Servitus est constitu- 
te juris gentium, qua quis dominio alieno 
contra naturam subjicitur." And they are 
called slaves, servi, because commanders 
were accustomed to sell prisons of war, 
and to save, servare, those who otherwise 
would have been slain. And what is the 
comment of Vinius upon these paragraphs ? 
— That among Christians this institution 
of the law of nations is not in use, because 
" The law of charity has taught Christians, 
that captives are not to become the slaves 
of the captors ; that they ought not to be 
sold,— ought not to be compelled to hard 
labour, nor to submit to many other things 
in the servile condition." 



249 



" But, my Lords, in truth it would be 
very extraordinary if the Bible contained 
any such prohibition or reprobation of slave- 
ry, in terms, as the learned counsel seems to 
have searched for in it, and has searched for 
in vain. My Lords, the Christian religion 
is an institution not adapted to any parti- 
cular nation, to any one age, or to any par- 
ticular form of government ; it is univer- 
sal, for all nations, for all ages, for all forms 
of government without exception: It there- 
fore enjoins nothing and prohibits nothing 
but what is universally practicable or uni- 
versally omissible. Now, my Lords, slave- 
ry, though certainly contrary to the nature 
of man in its perfection, yet is one of 
those things, which, in the present de- 
praved state of human nature, will in point 
of fact, — slavery, though not in its worst 
forms, but in some form or another, will 
in fact always exist among the sons of 



250 

men ; it will perhaps always be a part, 
though a bad part, of the actual condition 
of the human race. Now, my Lords, the 
Christian religion, and revealed religion 
generally, is very cautious how it disturbs 
the peace of the world by sudden and vio- 
lent emendations of the political and moral 
state of man : It gives out general prin- 
ciples, which will work an amendment by 
degrees ; and trusts for the eradication of 
moral evil, to the slow and silent ope- 
ration of those general principles. But, 
my Lords, if you will conclude, that what- 
ever is not expressly prohibited or repro- 
bated in the Holy Scriptures is sanction^ 
ed by them, the inference will be extrava- 
gant and dangerous. My Lords, the sa- 
cred history records, without any expres- 
sion of disapprobation, the severities ex- 
ercised by King David upon the vanquish-* 
ed Ammonites, when he put them under 



251 



axes, and saws of iron, and harrows of iron, 
and made them pass through the brick- 
kilns : Would your Lordships allow it to 
be a just inference, that religion sanctions 
generally such treatment of conquered ene- 
mies ? Because the Christian religion 
positively enjoins, as it does enjoin most 
positively, the submission of the individual 
to the existing government, be it what it 
may, or in what hands it may, — would your 
Lordshins infer, that the Christian religion 
gives its sanction to the injustice and op- 
pressions of Nero and Caligula ? Yet, my 
Lords, to all this the argument goes, if 
from the no-con demnation of any thing in 
holy writ, we are to conclude the approba- 
tion of it, and by consequence the inno- 
cency of the practice. 

" But, my Lords, in truth I may wave 
all this : I might concede, if the thing were 



252 



true, without prejudice to the cause of 
abolition, that religion even approves the 
condition of slavery. My Lords, the ques- 
tion of abolition has nothing to do with 
the question whether the condition of 
slavery be allowed or forbidden by re- 
ligion — whether it be consistent with na- 
tural justice or contrary to it : Upon the 
question of abolition, those who take con- 
trary sides are not at issue about the right 
or wrong of the condition of slavery ; but 
we are at issue about the right or the 
wrong of certain modes or means that are^ 
used of reducing men to that condition : 
Are the means which the slave-trade em- 
ploys for that purpose fight or wrong ? — 
Now, my Lords, I do affirm, that although 
the learned counsel knew not where to 
find it, — positively I affirm, that the New 
Testament contains an express reprobation 



253 



in terms, an express prohibition of the 
slave-trade by name, as sinful in a very 
high degree. 

" The apostle St Paul, my Lords, in the 

First of his Epistles to St Timothy My 

Lords, the Bible is to be treated in this 
House with reverence. If I find occasion, 
in argument upon a subject like the pre- 
sent, to quote particular texts, any noble 
lord who may think proper to receive 
such quotations with a laugh must expect 
that I call him to order. — —I was saying, 
my Lords, that St Paul, in the First of 
his Epistles to St Timothy, having spoken 
of persons that were " lawless and disobe- 
dient, ungodly and sinners, unholy and pro- 
fane," proceeds to specify and distinguish 
the several characters and descriptions of 
men to which he applies those very ge- 
neral epithets ; and they are these, — " mur- 
derers of fathers, murderers of mothers, 



254 



man-slayers, they that defile themselves 
with mankind, men-stealers." Man-steal- 
ing, your Lordships see, is placed by the 
apostle in the scale of crime next after 
parricide, homicide, and sodomy. Now 
what is man-stealing, my Lords? — is it 
not kidnapping and panyaring? Your 
Lordships then cannot doubt that this text 
condemns and prohibits the slave-trade, in 
one at least of its most productive modes. 
But, my Lords, I go farther : I maintain 
that this text, rightly interpreted, con- 
demns and prohibits the slave-trade gene- 
rally, in all its modes ; it ranks the slave- 
trade, in the descending scale of crime, 
next after parricide, homicide, and sodomy. 

" The original word for which the Eng- 
lish Bible gives " men-stealers" is aviga,- 
xodi$7]$. Our translators have taken the 
word in the restricted sense which it bears 
in the Attic law ; in which the iizn avJf a- 



255 



tfoli<r[jLx was a criminal prosecution for the 
specific crime of kidnapping, the penalty 
of which was death. But your Lordships 
know, that the phraseology of the Holy 
Scriptures, especially in the preceptive part, 
is a popular phraseology; and my noble 
and learned friend* opposite to me very 
well knows, that avdgavohMg, in its popular 
sense, is a person who " deals in men," 
literally a slave-trader : That is the Eng- 
lish word, literally and exactly correspond- 
ing to the Greek, f That noble and learn- 



* Lord Thurlow. 

•j- " Who will there be to sell you slaves," says Poverty 
to Chremulus, in the "Plutus," Act Second, Scene Fifth, 
" when the other will have money in plenty as well as you ? " 
— " Some merchant," replies Chremulus, " desirous of gain, 
coming from Thessaly, 7ra^a, ?r>Ji<syv w'h%z > ff$ftfv, where slave* 
traders are most numerous." — See the Scholiast on the pas- 
sage. 

Much has been said in defence of the slave-trade from 
the example of antiquity. The fact however is, that the 
persons who carried it on were universally infamous ; for 



256 



ed lord knows very well, that the Greek 
word is so explained by the learned gram- 
marian Eustathius, and by other gramma- 
rians of the first authority.* I repeat it 
therefore, my Lords, once more, — it cannot 
too often be repeated, — that in this text of 
Scripture the slave-trade is condemned and 
prohibited by name, as a thing abominable 
in the sight of God, and wicked in the 
next degree to sodomy. 

" My Lords, the learned counsel with 
whose argument I have been dealing clo- 
sed his eloquent oration with an admoni- 
tion to your Lordships to beware how you 
are persuaded to adopt the visionary pro- 



«y£gfiS7!-c£<f«$, " a slave-trader," in the Greek language was 
an appellation of the highest infamy and reproach : You 
could not call a man a worse name. — Vide Schol. Aristoplu 
Thesmoph. lin. 825. 

* Eustath. ad II H. 475. 

Schol. Aristoph. ad Pint. lin. 521. 



257 



jects of fanaticism. My Lords, I know not 
in what direction that shaft was shot ; and 
I care not : It concerns not me ; proudly 
conscious as I am, that with the highest 
reverence for our holy religion — with the 
firmest conviction of its truth — with a 
deep sense, I trust, of the importance of 
its doctrines and its precepts — the general 
shape and fashion of my life bears no- 
thing of the stamp of fanaticism. But, my 
Lords, give me leave, in my turn, to ad- 
dress a word of serious exhortation to your 
Lordships. Beware, my Lords, how you 
are persuaded to bury under the opprobri- 
ous name of fanaticism the regard which 
you owe to the great duties of justice and 
mercy ; for the neglect of which, if you 
should neglect them, you will be answer- 
able at that tribunal where no prevarica- 
tion of witnesses can misinform the judge, 
— where no subtilty of an advocate, miscall- 



258 



ing the names of things, " putting evil for 
good and good for evil, bitter for sweet 
and sweet for bitter,*' can mislead his judg- 
ment. 



The bill was thrown out, by a majority 

of seven. 



UPON THE ADULTERY BILL; 
May 23, 1800. 



On the 2d of April 1800, Lord Auck- 
land, after expatiating very forcibly and elo- 
quently upon the enormous increase of the 
vice of adultery, and the perversion as 
well as abuse of many divorce-bills which 
had passed the Legislature of this country, 
moved to bring in a bill to prevent any 
person divorced for adultery from inter- 
marrying with the guilty person. The bill 
was accordingly brought in ; and upon the 
third reading, on the 23d of May, a very 
animated debate arose j in which the Bishop 
of Rochester thus delivered his senti- 
ments. 



260 



" MY LORDS, 

" It may seem that I ought to 
rise with great diffidence before your Lord- 
ships, after the admonition I have received, 
from a noble earl* who spoke early in this 
night's debate, of my utter incapacity to 
form any judgment in a matter of the sort 
now before the House. But, my Lords, I 
am encouraged, by the example of the 
noble and learned lord upon the woolsack, 
and by the example of a right reverend 
prelate near me ; who, notwithstanding 
they were equally with myself included in 
the incapacity imputed in common to re- 
cluses of the law and to recluses of the 
church — to legal and ecclesiastical monks, 
have nevertheless adventured to give their 
opinion upon the present occasion. But, 
my Lords, much more than by the ex- 



* The Earl of Carlisle. 



I 

261 

ample of the noble and learned lord upon 
the woolsack, much more than by the ex- 
ample of the right reverend prelate near 
me, I feel myself emboldened by the pub- 
lic judgment of my country — by repeated 
and express declarations in the statute- 
book. My Lords, at a time when there 
was little partiality for the authority of the 
church, in the reign of Henry the Eighth, 
it is repeatedly asserted in the statutes — 
asserted as the ground of many particular 
enactments, that the proper judges in 
causes matrimonial are divines and canon- 
ists ; that divines and canonists are the 
persons best qualified to judge of the crime 
of adultery — what is to be deemed adul- 
tery — what punishments should be applied 
to it. And the temporal judges in those 
times gave the same opinion : When pro- 
hibition was prayed to stop proceedings in 
the ecclesiastical courts in causes of adul- 



262 



tery, it was constantly refused ; and re- 
fused upon this avowed principle, by the 
Justices in the Court of King's Bench, 
— that the ecclesiastical courts were the 
proper courts to have cognizance of adul- 
tery, because it is a matter in which di- 
vines and canonists are the most compe- 
tent judges. That branch therefore of 
the law w 7 ith which the present question 
is most immediately connected, the wisdom 
of our ancestors has placed in the hands of 
those whom the noble earl pronounces in- 
capable of forming any sound judgment in 
such matters. 

" My Lords, I was perfectly astonished 
at the reflections which the noble earl 
thought proper to cast upon the ecclesias- 
tical courts. One of his lordship's great 
objections to the present bill is, that, intro- 
ducing a new punishment of adultery, it 
nevertheless reserves the jurisdiction of 



263 

these courts. The noble earl talks of this 
jurisdiction as a perfect nuisance in the 
country : The ecclesiastical courts, in the 
noble earl's conceptions, are an Augaean 
stable, which want a Hercules to cleanse 
them. My Lords, I must tell the noble 
earl, what I need not tell your Lordships, 
that the proceedings in the ecclesiastical 
courts are as regular, and go with as much 
certainty to serve the purposes of substan- 
tial justice, as those in the temporal courts. 
It is true, my Lords, they have, in those 
matters that are subject to their cogni- 
zance, a system of law and jurisprudence 
of their own, and their own forms of pro- 
ceeding : But their system is a w ise, well- 
digested system, founded on the general 
principles of justice ; and their forms are 
regular, known, and certain : And, in the 
hands in which the administration of that 
part of the law of the country is at present 



264 



placed, and has been placed for a long time 
backward, no one will presume to say that 
justice is not distributed with as much 
ability and as much integrity in those 
courts as in any other court of law or 
equity in Great Britain. 

" My Lords, I derive farther encourage- 
ment to offer my opinion upon the pre- 
sent occasion, from the example of my 
noble friend the original mover of this 
bill : For, my Lords, the incapacity im- 
puted to me and the recluses of the law is 
not confined to us ; it extends over various 
descriptions of persons in this assembly, 
and my noble friend is included under the 
same disability. My Lords, it seems his 
grave and weighty occupations as a public 
minister at foreign courts have kept him 
retired like us from scenes of gayety and 
dissipation ; and he is destitute of all that 
ability for the present discussion which is 



265 



not to be acquired without much experi- 
ence in the arts of practical gallantry ! My 
Lords, these men of public business — these 
foreign ministers, are all of them, like my- 
self, like my brethren on this bench, like 
the noble and learned lord upon the wool- 
sack, like his brethren in Westminster 
Hall, — they are all very drivellers in these 
subjects ; monks, recluses, mere old wo- 
men, my Lords : It is a shame you should 
mind any thing they say ! 

" However, my Lords, I shall take cou- 
rage to offer my opinion, such as it may be, 
perhaps at some length, upon the present 
subject. My Lords, the objections to the 
bill have been taken upon so many differ- 
ent grounds, — what they want singly in 
weight, they so abundantly make up in 
number, — that although I am not at a loss 
what to reply to any one, I am indeed 
much at loss with which to begin. There 



266 



is so little coherence in the different ob- 
jections among themselves, that they lead 
to no particular order ; and to give perspi- 
cuity, and what I can of brevity, to my 
argument, I must endeavour to reduce 
them to some general heads. 

" One ground of objection has been, 
that the bill is an alteration of the laws of 
the land. 

" Another, that it gives a double punish- 
ment for one crime ; not taking away the 
action of damages when it makes the adul- 
terer liable to indictment. 

" The divine law has been much brought 
in question. It is contended on our side, 
that the marriage of a divorced adulteress 
with the adulterer is itself adultery, by 
the law of God : The opposers of the bill 
not only deny this, but they allege the 
law of God in justification of such mar- 
riages. 



267 



" Another objection is, — and a great one 
it would be, if it could be made out, — that 
the effect of the clause prohibiting such 
marriages will be the very reverse of that 
which the promoters of the bill expect ; 
that it will promote adultery, instead of 
restraining it. 

" Now, my Lords, with respect to the 
first objection— that the bill will change 
the law of the land, your Lordships may 
remember, that in a former debate I ven- 
tured to meet this objection, so far as it 
regards that part of the bill which makes 
adultery a misdemeanour punishable by the 
temporal courts, with a flat denial. I said 
that this did not amount to a change of the 
law ; and I was doubtful whether in this 
I should have the concurrence of the noble 
and learned lord upon the woolsack : But, 
my Lords, I have the satisfaction to find> 
from what I have heard this night, that 



268 



there is no difference of opinion between 
the noble and learned lord and me upon 
this more than upon any other part of the 
subject ; the noble lord having stated, with 
more precision and accuracy, the very same 
distinctions which were in my mind when 
I made the assertion, and are indeed the 
ground of it. My Lords, if the bill crea- 
ted any new crime, — if it made that crimi- 
nal which the law never considered or 
treated as a crime before, — that I should 
allow to be a very material alteration of 
the laws of England : But no new crime is 
created; adultery always was a crime by 
the laws of England ; a new punishment 
is applied, and a new mode of prosecution 
is established. But when the penalties 
hitherto applied have been found insuffi- 
cient to the prevention of the crime, and 
the mode of prosecution ineffectual, I can- 
not admit, that the enactment of strong- 



269 



er penalties, and the introduction of a more 
vigorous mode of prosecution, are an essen- 
tial alteration of the law. These measures 
seem to me to be only an affirmance of the 
old law, — means of enforcing obedience 
— of preventing those offences which it al- 
ways was an object of the law to prevent, 
by adequate punishments. I cannot see 
that the making of adultery a misdemean- 
our is any dangerous innovation in the 
law ; it is only a strengthening of it 

" Noble lords contend, that even this 
reasoning (the justice of which, I know, 
they admit not) is not applicable to what 
they call the abominable clause : This, 
they say, is an alteration of the law upon 
my own principles ; since it makes that 
henceforth unlawful which at present is 
lawful, inasmuch as the marriage of the 
divorced adulteress with her seducer is not 



270 



forbidden by the law of England as it 
stands at present. 

" But, my Lords, here again I must dis- 
sent : I maintain, that the bill, in this 
particular clause, is the very reverse of in- 
novation. I say, my Lords, that the pre- 
sent practice is a departure from the true 
principles of the law, and from the ancient 
practice ; and that this bill, in the abomi- 
nable clause, reverting to the old prin- 
ciple and restoring the old practice, in- 
stead of innovating abolishes innovation. 
My Lords, inasmuch as causes matrimo- 
nial belong to the ecclesiastical jurisdic- 
tion, the canon law, so far as it has not 
been altered by statute, and so far as it has 
been uniformly adopted as the rule of our 
ecclesiastical courts, is upon this subject a 
branch of the common law of England, 
By the common law of England therefore 



£71 



(for by the old canon law, the law of this 
subject), parties separated a mensd et thoro 
by the sentence of the court are not al- 
lowed to contract a new marriage, the one 
during the life of the other ; and any new 
marriage so contracted is illegal ; and the 
cohabitation of parties under colour of 
such illegal marriage is adultery. " In 
all sentences for divorce and separation 
a thoro et mensd^ there shall be a caution 
and restraint inserted in the act of the 
said sentence, that the parties so separated 
shall live chastely and continently ; nei- 
ther shall they during each other's life 
contract matrimony with other person." 
This is the 107th of our canons of 1603: 
But this is only the general rule of the 
old canon law transferred into the domes- 
tic canons of our reformed church ; for 
what says the old canon law ? — " Nec 
illi nubere conceditur, vivo viro a quo re- 



272 



xessit, — -neque huic alteram ducere, viva 
uxore quam dimisit." And of the same 
tenor were our own ancient constitutions. 
" Secundum evangelicam disciplinam, nec 
uxor a viro dimissa alium accipiat virum, 
vivente viro suo, — nec vir aliam accipiat 
uxorem, vivente uxore priore ; sed ita ma- 
neant, aut sibimet reconcilientur." This 
was the condition of separated parties, — 
both absolutely restrained from contracting 
any new marriage during their joint lives ; 
till it was first proposed, in the Reformatio 
Legiwi, in the case of separation for cause 
of adultery, to give the injured party liber- 
ty of marrying again, but with express re- 
striction of the indulgence to the innocent 
party. " Cum alter conjux adulterii dam- 
natus est, alteri licebit innocenti novum ad 
matrimonium si volet progredi ; nec enim 
asque adeo debet Integra persona crimine 
alieno premi, coelibatus ut invitse possit 



273 



obtrudi. Quapropter, Integra persona non 
habebitur adultera, si novo se matrimonio 
devinxerit." But as the Reformatio Legum 
never passed into a law, the practice came 
in by degrees of giving this liberty to the 
husband separated from an adulterous wife, 
by those private bills of divorce which are 
now become so common ; but it never was 
in the imagination of the Legislature, when 
such bills were first introduced, that they 
were to go to the effect of setting the adul- 
teress at liberty, — that an act of the Legis- 
lature, relieving the injured husband from 
the difficulties his wife's guilt had brought 
upon him, was to enable the guilty wife to 
carry her wicked purpose to its ultimate 
effect. This extravagant notion, I believe, 
took its rise from the strange principle set 
up by Archbishop Cranmer and his asso- 
ciates in the case of Lord Northampton ; 
which was recited by a noble lord, I be- 



274 



lieve with accuracy, in a former debate. 
Archbishop Cranmer, and those who sat 
with him upon that question, upon his 
suggestion said, that a marriage once dis- 
solved was as though it never had been 
had, and that both parties were set at li- 
berty. With a great reverence for the 
memory of that illustrious reformer, I have 
no hesitation in saying, that upon this oc- 
casion the venerable Archbishop reasoned 
more like a monk than a senator : He came 
to a conclusion upon a great question of 
law and justice upon a mere logical sub- 
tilty ; applying abstract principles to a prac- 
tical question, without due accommodation 
of them to the particular circumstances of 
the case ; in which way of application ab- 
stract principles are apt to be fallacious.* 



* It is to be observed, however, that the intended appli- 
cation of the principle was only to the relief of the in- 
jured husband : For the question before the Committee of 



215 

The conclusion to which he came I main- 
tain to be contrary to one of the most uni- 
versal rules of jurisprudence, — that no law 
is to be so interpreted as to make any one 
the better for his own wrong. But is not 
the adulteress the better for her own wrong, 
if, when separated from her husband for 
her crime, she is, by virtue of that very 
separation — that is in effect by virtue of her 
crime, set at liberty to go on to the full 
satisfaction of her criminal desires, under 
the sanction of a legal marriage with her 
seducer? — I maintain, that every such mar- 
riage is contrary to the true principles of 
the law of England, and contrary to the 



Bishops was only this, — whether the Lord Northampton, 
separated from his wife for her adultery, might lawfully and 
conscientiously contract a new marriage, the divorced wife 
living. Their decision, with respect to him, was just ; but 
the principle, in the extent in which it was laid down, 
was absurd, and has been the source of much mischief and 
confusion. 



276 



original intention of the Legislature in 
granting bills of divorce. And this bill re- 
calls, as I have said, the true principles 
and the old practice. 

" But, my Lords, I must explicitly dis- 
claim an inference that has been fastened 
upon this assertion of mine, — an inference 
which I not only disclaim, but abominate. 
It has been said, that if these principles of 
mine are true, the marriages (which are 
very numerous) that have of late years 
taken place between divorced wives and 
their seducers must be absolutely null and 
void, and the offspring of all such mar- 
riages must be illegitimate. My Lords, 
that the validity of all these marriages 
stands upon no better ground than a prac- 
tice swerving from principle, I ever will 
maintain ; but that they are not to be 
deemed valid, after the continuance of the 
practice for so many years, with the con- 



277 

nivance of the courts of law and of the Le- 
gislature, — that the children of all such 
marriages are illegitimate, — these would 
be mischievous wicked inferences. This 
is not the only instance in which wise laws 
have suffered a sort of tacit repeal, by a 
general consent in the neglect of them, and 
have passed into desuetude ; and in such 
cases the old law cannot safelv be restored 
but by new enactments : And to every 
thing previous to those new enactments 
the rule applies, " Quod fieri non debet, 
factum valet."* But, my Lords, if the 
case of these marriages were as the objec- 

* And this rule must be applied, even in cases in which 
a law of the country, founded on the divine law, has 
through inadvertence and a misconstruction of the law been 
infringed for a long course of time, and in numerous in- 
stances. The error must be corrected for the future without 
retrospect. The Mosaic law went even farther than this ; 
when, for political reasons, it tolerated the continuance of 
practices very inconsistent with the original institution of 
marriage. 



278 

tion to my argument supposes, it would 
be an additional argument for this bilL 
This bill puts out of doubt the validity of 
all these marriages already had, and the 
legitimacy of the offspring : If the one or 
the other could be called in question as 
they now stand, when once this bill shall 
be passed into a law they never can be 
called in question. For what says the 
bill ? — That u after the passing of this act, 
it shall not be lawful, &c." My Lords, 
the very passing of a bill to make a thing 
unlawful for all time to come, implies; 
of necessity implies, that in time past, 
previous to the passing of the bill, the 
thing was deemed lawful ; so that this 
bill, making such marriages in future, but 
in future only, unlawful, legalizes all that 
have been already had, and lays asleep all 
doubts about the civil condition of the off- 
spring. 



279 



" But, my Lords, by the letter of the 
divine law, I persist in my assertion, that 
all these intermarriages of the adulteress 
with her seducer, after a bill of divorce 
from her former husband, are adulteries. 
A noble earl has gone so far in the con- 
trary opinion, as to maintain that such 
marriages, so far from being forbidden, are 
commanded by the divine law. In proof 
of this, the noble earl produced a para- 
graph of the Mosaic law, in which it is 
commanded, that if a man lie with a dam- 
sel that is not betrothed, " she shall be 
his wife ; he may not put her away all his 
days."* But this relates only to virgins ; 
" a damsel that is a virgin" are the 
very words of the text. There is no sort 
of doubt, that by the Mosaic law, a man 
having deflowered a virgin, was obliged to 



# Deuteronomy, xxii. 28, 29. 



280 



tnarry her ; but let the noble earl look 
again, and find me, if he can, any law of 
Moses, or any passage in the whole Bible* 
which commands or even permits the di- 
vorced adulteress to marry the partaker of 
her guilt. 

" But, my Lords, when I speak of the 
divine law, I mean the divine law as it 
stands under the gospel : By that law, I 
contend, these marriages are adulteries. 
By the laws of Moses, the punishment of 
adultery was death ; and a large power 
of repudiation was given to the husband 
for inferior offences. In the later periods 
of the Jewish history, when the morals of 
the people were exceedingly relaxed and 
depraved, capital punishment in the case 
of adultery was rarely inflicted ; but the 
power of repudiation was used in an ex- 
tent beyond any thing the letter of the 
law could justify ; and this the more sober 



281 



part of the nation seem to have under- 
stood. Our Lord was consulted concern- 
ing the propriety of such divorces : His 
answer was, that by the original institu- 
tion of marriage, the contract was indis- 
soluble, — that the liberty of divorce under 
the Mosaic law was an accommodation to 
a certain hardness of heart among the 
Jewish people, — that from the beginning 
it was not so. He adds — " And I say un- 
to you (I, in conformity to the spirit of 
the institution, thus lay down my law), who- 
soever shall put away his wife, except it be 
for fornication, and shall marry another, 
committeth adultery ; and whoso mar- 
rieth her which is put away committeth 
adultery."* In the First Epistle to tha 



* Matthew, xix. 3 — 9. In this 9th verse, " I say unto 
you, &c." our Lord lays down his own law, without regard 
to the law of Moses, which he abrogates. By Christ's law, 
the man who puts away his wife, except for adultery, and 



282 



Corinthians, St Paul lays down the same 
rule as a positive command of our Lord, 
with respect to married persons both Chris- 
tians. Where one of the parties was a 
heathen or a Jew, and the other a Chris- 
tian, the case admitted some exceptions : 
But in the case of husband and wife both 
Christian, the apostle says — " Unto the 
married I command (not I, but the Lord), 
let not the wife be separated from her hus- 
band ; but if she be separated, let her re- 
main unmarried, or be reconciled to her 
husband."* The apostle enjoins this, not 



marries another, commits adultery ; and he who marries 
her thus put away by Christ's law, for adultery, the only 
cause of putting away under Christ's law, committeth adul- 
tery. This is the only exposition which our Lord's words 
can bear : For, by the law of Moses, it was not adultery for 
a man to put away his wife for another cause than adultery, 
and marry another ; neither was it adultery by the Mosaic 
law for another man to marry a woman put away. See 
Deuteronomy, xxiv. 1, 2. 

* 1 Corinthians, vii. 10, 11. 



i 



283 



as from himself, but as a positive com- 
mand of Christ. The apostle therefore 
agrees in my interpretation of our Lord's 
words, when I say, that, as the divine law 
is laid down by our Lord himself in his 
answer to the Pharisees, the, cohabita- 
tion of a divorced adulteress with her se- 
ducer under colour of a marriage, notwith- 
standing the connivance of human laws, is 
gross adultery. 

" My Lords, in a former night's debate 
(to which I may be permitted to allude, 
though not strictly in order ; because it 
was agreed on both sides, to postpone the 
discussion of points of argument then ge- 
nerally opened till the bill should reach its 
present stage), — I say, my Lords, when 
what I have just now said of the marriages 
of these divorced women under the law of 
the gospel fell from me in a former night's 
debate, a noble earl quarrelled with the pre- 



284 



sumption, as it seemed to him* of the as- 
sertion ; reminding me that the cause of 
those whom I ventured to call adulteres- 
ses was not to be judged before the Last 
Great Day ; and the noble earl added, that 
on that day he knew it would be judged 
mercifully. My Lords, I really believe 
there is less difference between the noble 
earl's sentiments upon that point and mine 
than the noble earl himself imagines. The 
noble earl seems to confound two things 
which are totally distinct, — the general 
enactments of the divine law ; and the ap- 
plication of those general enactments to 
fix the final doom of every individual. My 
Lords, if I say that the crime of adultery 
is generally forbidden by the Ten Com- 
mandments, the noble earl will not con- 
tradict me or tax me with presumption : 
If I say that adultery is generally forbid- 
den by the Christian religion, under pain 



285 



of eternal damnation, the noble earl will 
not contradict me, nor tax me with pre- 
sumption. What is to be deemed adul- 
tery, the noble earl and I shall not agree. 
If I say that the marriage of the wife di- 
vorced for adultery with her seducer is 
itself adultery of the most heinous kind, 
the noble earl will contradict me, because 
he holds the contrary opinion: Still he 
has no right to tax me with presump- 
tion ; since, in my judgment, the case 
has been so ruled by what I suppose I 
may be allowed to call the very highest 
ecclesiastical authority. But, my Lords, if I 
were to assert of any individual adulteress, 
she is lost for ever, she has been guilty of 
that which never can be pardoned, — much 
more, were I to assert of all the women 
who have wantonly contracted marriage 
with the seducers of their affections from 
their former husbands, — if I were to pro- 



286 



nounce of all these adulteresses, or of any 
one of them, that their irreversible doom 
is to endless punishment, — my Lords, I 
should be guilty of most impious horrible 
presumption, and I should justly incur the 
noble earl's reprehension. My Lords, it is 
my duty to teach and to maintain, that 
there is no crime which, upon a true re- 
pentance, God will not pardon : And God 
forbid that I should think otherwise of 
these unfortunate women, than that many 
of them will be brought to sincere repent- 
ance; and when once they are brought to 
repentance, their pardon is certain. If the 
noble earl, therefore, when he says their 
case will be mercifully judged at the Last 
Day, means only that the merciful provi- 
sion of the gospel for the pardon of pent- 
tent sinners extends to this species of sin 
as much as to any other, I entirely concur 
with the noble earl in that opinion : Still 



287 



I must assert, that the cohabitation of a 
wife divorced for adultery with a new hus- 
band, the former husband living, is adul- 
tery by the divine law ; since I have for 
that opinion the decision of our Lord him- 
self, and the apostle's exposition agreeing 
with my own upon that decision. 

" My Lords, I believe I have taken this 
discussion upon the divine law somewhat 
out of the order of general heads which 
I laid down ; and I must now go back to 
another ground of objection, which, to say 
the truth, in the variety of matter that 
presses upon me in this argument, I had 
almost forgotten, — namely, that this bill, 
not taking away the husband's action of 
damages when it makes the adulterer liable 
to indictment, in effect gives a double pu- 
nishment for the same crime. My Lords, 
is this any novelty in the law of this coun- 
try ? Are there not many cases in which 



288 



a party, injured by such act of another as is 
at the same time a public crime and a pri- 
vate wrong, is at liberty to pursue the of- 
fender either by indictment or action of 
damages ? But in such cases, the guilty 
party is not liable to both punishments j 
he is not to suffer for misdemeanour and 
to pay damages too. I believe, in all these 
cases there is a particular process by which 
his Majesty's Attorney-General calls upon 
the party complaining to make his elec- 
tion whether he will proceed by indict-, 
ment or by action of damages : He is at 
liberty to take his remedy in either way, 
but not in both. And this, my Lords, I 
apprehend, will be the case under this bill. 
This, however, is a point upon which I 
speak with diffidence, because it belongs 
to the learning of monks of another order : 
But if I have described the practice of the 
eourts erroneously, I hope the Superior of 



289 



that other order, the noble and learned lord 
upon the woolsack, will contradict me. 

" But, my Lords, we are told that the 
action of damages tends to promote adul- 
tery; and that, for this reason, a bill brought 
in for the prevention of adultery ought to 
abolish that action. It is supposed to pro- 
mote adultery in this way : Many a base 
sordid husband contrives to offer his wife 
to the arts of a seducer, in order to enrich 
himself by the damages which he hopes to 
recover. My Lords, I agree with the noble 
and learned lord upon the woolsack, in the 
opinion he delivered the other night, that 
the injured husband, in certain situations 
in life, may fairly and honourably seek the 
benefit of the action of damages ; and that 
he ought not to be deprived of it : But in 
cases of connivance and collusion, it is my 
belief that the damages given by the jury 
never are received. And this is a strong 

T 



290 



argument for another mode of punish- 
ment, not liable to be evaded by the col- 
lusion and secret good understanding of 
the parties. 

" I come now, my Lords, to consider 
the last article of objection, taken from the 
supposed effect of what is called the abo- 
minable clause ; as if that were likely to 
be the reverse of what the promoters of 
the bill expect from it. 

" Upon this head, it has been argued, 
that the experience of the thing is posi- 
tively against us. This inference from ex- 
perience is not very clearly made out ; but 
it is founded on a comparison of the man- 
ners of the women in this country, where 
the practice of divorce for cause of adul- 
tery obtains, with the manners of married 
women in foreign countries professing the 
Roman Catholic religion, which allows not 
of divorce for any cause. It is said that 



291 



in those countries adultery is far more fre- 
quent ; and this greater frequency of the 
crime is ascribed to the absolute disuse and 
prohibition of divorce in those countries. 
My Lords, I am very ready to believe the 
fact, and very ready to admit that the 
true cause is assigned for it ; because I 
can easily imagine, that the women will be 
less strict, where they know, that be their 
conduct ever so bad, their husbands can- 
not cast them off, but are still under the 
necessity of supporting them as their wives, 
and must father the offspring. This seems 
indeed to be a very strong argument in fa- 
vour of our practice of divorce for adultery. 
I have sometimes had doubts upon that 
point ; I have sometimes thought, that it 
had been a happy thing for the public if 
no bill of divorce had ever passed : But 
I confess, that the notorious prevalence of 
adultery in countries where divorce is by 



292 

no means to be had seems to prove the 
contrary. But, my Lords, there is no far- 
ther inference ; I can find nothing, in the 
statement of the case between this and fo- 
reign countries, that offers any thing like 
experiment to decide the present question, 
in this country, where divorce is admitted, 
of the policy or impolicy of the restraint 
proposed to be laid upon divorced women : 
Nor do I see how it is possible that foreign 
countries should furnish any such experi- 
ment ; because divorce must take place 
before you can have experience of the 
good or ill of any thing that is to follow it. 

" I conceive therefore, that we have no 
way of judging of the utility or inutili- 
ty of the restraint proposed by this bill, 
but by a probable estimation of the differ- 
ent manner in which the minds of parties 
in adultery are likely to be affected before 
the actual commission of the crime, by the 



293 



law as it now stands, and by the law as it 
will stand if this bill should pass into a 
law. This is the only way to judge of the 
expedience of the clause of restraint as a 
preventive ; in which light I consider it. 

" Now, my Lords, I imagine that in 
most cases of adultery that come before 
your Lordships, the first incitement to the 
crime on either side has not been the mere 
animal appetite — not gross brutal sensuali- 
ty; that sentiments of mutual friendship 
and affection have mixed themselves with 
appetite ; that these sentiments of affec- 
tion have had somewhat of a just founda- 
tion, in the amiable qualities and elegant 
accomplishments of either party : I sup- 
pose that this mixed passion, a compound 
of desires highly criminal and of certain 
sympathies of the mind in themselves in- 
nocent, is in most instances the incentive 
to the crime on both sides : I may sup- 



294 



pose too, that in many cases the husband's 
treatment of the wife is not such as to 
recall her wandering affections, — that he 
cares little about her, — that, from his in- 
difference and her levity, they are become 
objects of mutual disgust and aversion, — 
and that the husband perhaps, no less than 
the wife, has set his heart upon a new con- 
nexion. Now, what says the law, accord- 
ing to the present practice, to these three 
parties ? — It says this : " Nothing so easy 
as for all of you to have your several wishes. 
Nothing is wanting, but a little money on 
the part of the husband, who must set the 
whole scheme a-going, to answer the ex- 
pense of the law proceedings ; and that 
want the proceedings themselves may per- 
haps supply. Let the husband give the 
lady and the lover opportunity ; then let 
him bring his action of damages : His 
damages, if he takes them, will defray his 



295 

charges in the spiritual courts and in both 
Houses of Parliament. The lady must 
make no defence ; she must kindly supply 
the husband with the proofs of her own 
shame : The lover must not defend the 
action of damages ; he may find his ac- 
count in suffering judgment to go by de- 
fault. Great damages may be given ; but 
if the husband is opulent, every shilling 
may be remitted. However that may be, 
if you can amongst you defray the charges, 
a divorce will be obtained, and you will all 
be at liberty." My Lords, is it fit that the 
laws of a civilized country, of a Christian 
country, should hold this language to three 
such parties as I have set before your 
Lordships, — the indifferent husband, the 
gay wife, the amorous seducer ? 

" But now, my Lords, let us see how 
the matter will stand if the laws are altered 
in the manner we propose. The lady, I 



296 

should think, will have some consideration 
of the situation to which the indulgence of 
a criminal passion would reduce her. I 
shall not dwell upon the miseries of that 
situation : They have been set forth with 
so much eloquence and feeling by noble 
lords who oppose this bill, that no words 
of mine could heighten the description. 
But, I ask, can noble lords imagine that 
the forecast of these sufferings, which they 
contemplate with such pangs of commise- 
ration in a third person, will have no effect 
upon the mind of the wom^in herself, to 
deter her from those criminal indulgences 
by which she would be involved in them ? 
Then, my Lords, for the seducer; who pro- 
bably, as the lav/ is understood, palliates his 
guiJty project to his own mind with the 
intention of making the lady his own wife 
if they should be detected and a divorce 
should take place, — will it be no restraint 



297 



upon him, when the law tells him " You 
shall not be at liberty to give her this pro- 
tection — to make even this imperfect re- 
paration of her honour ?" That a divor- 
ced wife, by marriage with her seducer, is 
reinstated in the character and rank which 
she held in society as a virtuous woman, is 
certainly not the case : However, she is 
brought into a situation of tolerable ease ; 
in which she finds it not difficult to forego 
the enjoyment of that cast of society from 
which she is excluded. Will it be no re- 
straint upon her lover, when the law tells 
him " It shall not be in your power to 
raise her even this step above the condition 
of absolute scorn and infamy : You shall 
not be allowed to confer upon her the 
name of wife?" 

" Noble lords say " No ; this will be no 
restraint upon his passions : It will be an 
incentive." Noble lords say, that it never 



298 



is in the contemplation of a seducer to 
marry the woman upon whom his arts suc- 
ceed: That no man, of his own good- 
liking and free-will, marries the woman he 
has corrupted : That the marriage is a 
matter of dire necessity, which the impe- 
rious laws of gallantry, it seems, impose up- 
on him ; and, extricated from the shackles 
of those laws by' the operation of our bill, 
he will pursue his base purposes with less 
scruple and hesitation. 

" My Lords, I really think this man of 
gallantry is very ill treated by his noble 
friends. My Lords, I gave him, under 
the impulse of a criminal passion, some 
portion, however, of the feelings of a man 
— some share of the sentiments of a gen- 
tleman. His noble friends turn him into 
a downright hog ; for, my Lords, there 
remains nothing but bare unqualified sen- 
suality to be the incitement to the conduct 



299 

which they impute to him. My Lords, I 
really believe that neither this bill nor any 
other you can frame will restrain the pas- 
sions of this swinish seducer. But frequent 
as the crime of adultery is, I hope, my 
Lords, that these swinish seducers are very 
few in number. My Lords, when we have 
spoken of connivance and collusion on the 
part of the husband, which we believe to 
be very common, noble lords on the other 
side have exclaimed " What ! do you 
think husbands are so base ? Your supposi- 
tion is a libel on the character of the Eng- 
lish gentleman !" My Lords, I tell those 
noble lords, their supposition is the libel 
on the character of the English gentleman : 
Though I cannot consent to couple the 
epithet of honourable with the appella- 
tion of adulterer, yet I am confident the 
swinish adulterer is a very rare character 



300 



indeed among my countrymen. And on 
any but that character, this bill will be a 
powerful restraint. 

" And now, my Lords, with respect to 
the situation of the divorced adulteress un- 
der the operation of this bill, — it will un- 
questionably be a situation of extreme de- 
gradation and. affliction ; yet it is not a 
hardship brought upon her by this bill : 
She brings herself to it by her crime ; and 
the bill only says, that she shall not be al- 
lowed to extricate herself from it by the 
very completion of a guilty project. And 
if this restriction be a punishment for one 
that will actually incur the punishment, 
numbers will be saved by the terror of the 
example. 

" But noble lords say the situation of 
the fallen woman will be such as must 
drive her to absolute desperation, render 



301 



repentance and the reformation of her life 
impossible, and exclude her from all hopes 
of future mercy. 

" My Lords, that she cannot in the pre- 
sent world recover her situation in society, 
I admit ; but I conceive that very circum- 
stance, the mortified and solitary state to 
which she will be condemned, will be the 
surest means of bringing her to deep reflec- 
tion — through reflection to repentance — 
through repentance to pardon. If she has 
any sense of religion remaining in her 
mind, — and God forbid I should suppose it 
totally extinguished, — the less she has of 
comfort and countenance in the world, with 
the more earnestness will she turn herself 
to God. She is surely more likely to re- 
pent in a state of retirement and solitude, 
than clasped in the arms of her seducer, 
and sharing with him in gayety and plea- 
sure. Do noble lords conceive that the 



302 



repentance of a sinner is impeded by the 
punishments applied to his crimes by the 
secular magistrate ? — My Lords, my opi- 
nion is far otherwise : I have not the least 
doubt, that severe laws, and a severe exe- 
cution of the laws, have often been the 
beginning at least of a complete radical re- 
form in minds too depraved and hardened 
to be wrought upon by any other means : 
I have no doubt, that many of the worst 
criminals that die by the hand of the exe- 
cutioner, are brought, by the sentence which 
they suffer here, to a deep sense of their 
crimes, and to that repentance which will 
avail them in the Last Day. My Lords, 
this is the presumption of our forms of 
law, — this is the opinion of the church. 
According to the received forms of law, 
the judge never pronounces sentence of 
death upon a criminal, but he adds " The 
Lord have mercy on your soul ! " which 



SOS 

would be a wicked mockery of the man's* 
dreadful situation if his soul were utterly 
without hope of mercy. The church ap- 
points a clergyman to attend the con- 
demned malefactor in the interval between 
sentence and execution, to prepare him 
for death, and to assist him in making his 
peace with God ; and if he gives signs of 
genuine repentance, the church so much 
relies on the acceptance of that repentance, 
that she permits him to be admitted to the 
sacrament. Thus dying by the stroke of 
vindictive justice, he dies in the peace and 
communion of the church ; he dies a re- 
conciled penitent, in the hope of final par- 
don. My Lords, were the case otherwise, 
I know not upon what principle capital 
punishments could be justified in a Chris- 
tian country ; for a sentence of death 
would be a sentence of much more than 
death, — an anticipation of the dreadful sen- 



304 

tence to everlasting torment. Now, my 
Lords, God forbid that I should deny to 
these unfortunate women the comfort of 
that hope which I extend to the very worst 
of malefactors ; I doubt not, but that num- 
bers of them will be brought to repentance 
and to mercy : But I contend, that the 
restraints laid upon them by this bill will 
be the most likely means to awaken them 
to repentance ; so that this very severity 
in its effect is mercy. 

" My Lords, you have been addressed as 
fathers, — you have been entreated not to 
be severe against those infirmities of our 
common nature from which your own 
daughters, with all the advantages of high 
breeding, cannot be exempt. My Lords, 
I too call upon you as fathers ; I demand 
of you, not connivance at the shame, but 
protection of the innocence and honour of 
your daughters ! A father may have many 



305 



daughters ; if one of these is betrayed by 
those infirmities of our common nature, 
how is the father to protect the honour of 
the rest ? Will he think its security too 
dearly bought by the sufferings of the 
guilty ? How is it to be secured at all, if 
this guilt is generally to escape with impu- 
nity ? — But, my Lords, I address you not as 
fathers individually : I say, that the inno- 
cence of daughters is a matter in which 
fathers ought to make a common cause; 
and the feelings of the individual must be 
sacrificed, when the occasion requires it, to 
the common interest. 

" My Lords, once more I conjure you 
to remember, that justice, not compassion 
for the guilty, is the great principle of le- 
gislation. Yet, my Lords, your compas- 
sion may find worthy objects : Turn, my 
Lords, your merciful regards to the illus- 
trious suppliants prostrate at this moment 

u 



S06 



at your bar, — Conjugal Fidelity, Domestic 
Happiness, Public Manners, the Virtue of 
the Sex ! These, my Lords, are the sup- 
pliants now kneeling before you, and im- 
ploring the protection of your wisdom and 
your justice." 



The bill was carried, by a majority of 
eight ; seventy-seven peers voting for it, 
sixty-nine against it. 



UPON THE BILL TO PREVENT THE INCREASE 
OF PAPISTS, AND TO REGULATE THE EXIST- 
ING MONASTIC INSTITUTIONS ; 

July 10, 1800. 



Al bill having passed the House of Com- 
mons, entitled " an act to prevent any ad- 
dition to the number of persons belonging 
to certain foreign religious orders or com- 
munities lately settled in this kingdom, 
and to regulate the education of youth by 
such persons," the same was moved for 
commitment in the Upper House on the 
10th of July 1800. The framers of this 
bill contended, that the growth of Popery 
had come to such an excess by the tolera- 
tion granted to the emigrant clergy and 
the exiled monks and nuns of France, that 



308 



strong measures were required to stop it. 
The bill therefore provided, that the tem- 
porary residents in the several monasteries 
in the kingdom be subject to the provi- 
sions of the alien act ; that the names and 
numbers of all such persons be returned 
to the magistrates in their respective dis- 
tricts ; that the farther extension of such 
institutions should be prohibited ; that 
the heads of all such monasteries return 
their names, &c. together with that of their 
pupils, at every quarter-sessions ; and that 
magistrates should in their districts inspect 
the same. The bill was strongly opposed 
by the Bishop of Rochester, in the fol- 
lowing words. 



" MY LORDS, 

" If I have not opposed the 
second reading of this bill, it is because I 



309 



conceive that your Lordships are seldom 
clearly informed of the principle of a bill 
till it has been read a second time. The 
first reading is little more than a notifica- 
tion that a bill for such or such a purpose 
is in the House ; and, at this period of the 
session, we are so little in the habit of a 
close attendance upon our Parliamentary 
duty, that it happens to many of your 
Lordships not to see the prints that are 
laid upon the table till within a few mi- 
nutes of the second reading. But the bill 
having now received its second reading, I 
must suppose your Lordships to be in com- 
plete possession of its principle ; and I 
rise without the least hesitation to oppose 
its farther progress. In this, my Lords, I 
shall labour under this particular disadvan- 
tage, — that none of the friends of the bill 
having taken the trouble to open what 
they take to be its merits, I can only guess 



310 



what they will find to say in support of it : 
I can therefore only state my own objec- 
tions ; and reply to the supposed argu- 
ments of the other side, by guess and divi- 
nation. 

" My Lords, the object of the bill is to 
provide a security against certain dangers 
which it is supposed may arise from the 
great influx of persons of the Roman Ca- 
tholic religion into this country, in conse- 
quence of the French Revolution, — to pro- 
vide a security against these dangers by a 
new power to be placed in the hands of 
the Crown. My Lords, my objection is, — 
that in one respect the bill is unnecessa- 
ry, and in another completely unconstitu- 
tional : It is unnecessary as a means of se- 
curity against the dangers it foresees, — not 
because the apprehension is altogether 
groundless, but because the security is aj- 
xeady provided by the existing laws ; and 



311 



in regard to the new power which it would 
give to the Crown, it is perfectly unconsti- 
tutional. 

" My Lords, the storm of antichristian 
persecution, which has raged in France 
since her Revolution, has driven numbers 
both of the secular clergy, and persons of 
both sexes of the religious orders, to take 
shelter in this hospitable land, by the na- 
tural generosity of Britons, and the influ- 
ence of the benevolent principles of the 
Protestant religion, the universal asylum 
of the persecuted and distressed. My 
Lords, the protection we have given to 
these miserable fugitives reflects the high- 
est honour upon the country, and upon 
the Protestant religion, which we profess. 
At the same time, my Lords, while we ex- 
tend this kindness to persons of a diffe- 
rent religious persuasion, it certainly be- 
comes the wisdom of the Legislature, to 



312 



look to the consequences that may arise to 
our own civil constitution and our own 
ecclesiastical establishment, and to provide 
for the security of both : But, my Lords, 
I contend that the security of both is suf- 
ficiently provided for by the existing laws, 
— better provided for by them than by this 
bill ; and that any new law for the purpose 
is altogether unnecessary : And I am al- 
ways an enemy to the multiplication of 
statutes without urgent necessity. 

" My Lords, before I enter upon the 
particular dangers which the bill would 
prevent, and the means of prevention af- 
forded by the existing laws, I believe it 
will be proper to premise some general ob- 
servations upon the statutes which relate 
to persons professing the Roman Catholic 
religion, as they stand at present. This 
may somewhat shorten the sequel of my 
argument ; and I feel, that in spite of all 



313 



I can do to abbreviate, the detail into 
which I shall be obliged to eliter will de- 
tain your Lordships much longer than I 
could wish : But somewhat I hope of bre- 
vity, and much of perspicuity, will be gain- 
ed by the preliminary observations I am 
about to make. 

" First, my Lords, I would observe, 
that all laws respecting Roman Catholics 
apply equally, without any difference or 
discrimination, to the natural-born subjects 
of his Majesty and to aliens. This is the 
case both of the old penal statutes and of 
the late statutes of relief: The penalty 
attaches upon any overt act of Popery, 
whether he who commits it be a natural- 
born subject or an alien, without any re- 
gard to that difference of condition. On 
the other hand, the late statutes for the 
relief of Roman Catholics from some pe- 
nalties, upon certain conditions, — the be- 



314 



nefit, I say, of these extends equally to the 
alien and natural-born subject : These sta- 
tutes of relief relieve equally, and under 
the same conditions, all persons on whom 
the penalties would otherwise attach ; the 
alien is equally with the natural-born sub- 
ject entitled to the relief, if he perform the 
condition under which the relief is held 
out. 

" My Lords, another observation I have 
to make upon these laws is this : It is 
very important ; and I believe the thing is 
not generally understood, — it certainly was 
not understood by the framers of this bill. 
My Lords, by the late statutes for the re- 
lief of Roman Catholics, not one of the old 
penal statutes is repealed, — except indeed 
certain clauses in a statute of the 11th 
and 12th of William the Third, subject- 
ing any Popish bishop, priest, or Jesuit, 
who 3hould say mass, or exercise any part 



315 



of the function of a Popish bishop or 
priest, and any person professing the Po- 
pish religion who should keep a school or 
take youth to board, to perpetual imprison- 
ment ; entitling any person who should 
apprehend and prosecute to conviction 
any Popish bishop, priest, or Jesuit, to a 
reward of 100/. ; and creating certain dis- 
abilities of taking lands by descent, devise, 
or limitation. These odious clauses in the 
statute of King William are indeed repeal- 
ed by an act of the 18th of the King: 
But, with the exception of these clauses, 
my Lords, not one of the old penal statutes 
is repealed. My Lords, I speak in the 
presence of those who are w r eil acquainted 
with this subject : I am therefore in no ap- 
prehension that I shall mislead your Lord- 
ships ; I hope I shall be myself set right, if 
I am in error. But, my Lords, I repeat 
my assertion, desiring to be contradicted if 



316 



I am wrong, — with the exception of so 
much as I have mentioned of the statute 
of King William, not an atom of the old 
penal law is repealed.* 

" It is true, my Lords, a statute was 
passed, in the 31st of the King, to re- 
lieve persons professing the Roman Catho- 
lic religion from certain penalties, under 
certain conditions. But, my Lords, this 
statute, without repealing any one of the 
old penal laws, gives its relief in this man- 
ner, and in no other : It requires that the 
Roman Catholic shall take and subscribe 
a certain oath and declaration ; which, with 
respect to him, is an oath of allegiance, su- 
premacy, and abjuration : Then it enacts, 
that no person who has taken and sub- 
scribed this oath and declaration shall 



* This was said to provoke a noble duke to speak out* 
who made signs, as they were understood, of dissent. 



317 



henceforth be prosecuted, by virtue of any 
of the penal statutes, for certain overt acts 
of Popery, which it names, — such as not 
going to church, going to mass, or keeping 
a Popish servant. But as it only stays the 
prosecution or conviction, without repeal- 
ing the statute, — -if any Roman Catholic 
refuses or neglects to take and subscribe 
the oath and declaration, the unrepealed 
statute is in full force against him ; or if, 
having taken the oath, he does any thing 
forbidden by the old statutes, which is not 
mentioned in the statute of relief as one of 
the things for which he is not to be prose- 
cuted, the old statute is in force, and the 
penalty for such offence still attaches. 

" Having made these general observa- 
tions upon the laws respecting Roman Ca- 
tholics, as they now stand, I shall now state 
to your Lordships the very sufficient se- 
curity which I conceive they afford against 



318 



any danger that may be thought likely to 
arise from the fugitives from France, the 
objects of her antichristian persecution. 

" My Lords, it is supposed that these 
ecclesiastics of the church of Rome may 
have some zeal to propagate the religion 
to which they are attached, and may take 
advantage of every opportunity they can 
find of disseminating the principles of their 
church among our common people. My 
Lords, it is very likely : I should expect 
that the ecclesiastic of the church of Rome 
would be animated with this zeal ; be- 
cause, my Lords, I conceive that every 
man that has a religion has some zeal for 
propagating that religion, — meaning, by a 
religion, some particular shape and form of 
the Christian religion — a religion affecting 
the future interests of men, and furnishing 
means for the securing of those interests. 
My Lords, I say that every man that has 



319 



such a religion has a zeal for the propaga- 
tion of it : If he has not the zeal, he is not 
in earnest in his professions. If indeed a 
man's religion consists merely in negatives, 
— which is the case with many now-a-days, 
who would be thought good Christians and 
the best of Protestants, though they seem 
to have no acknowledged creed, but a sort 
of confession of disbelief, without an avow- 
ed assent to any thing definite ; persons 
w 7 ho, not adhering to the original principles 
of the Reformation, as laid down in the Con- 
fession of Faith of the churches of Saxony, 
and the Thirty-nine Articles of the church 
of England, think to reform the Reforma- 
tion, by expunging, one after another, eve- 
ry article of our belief — the Trinity— the in- 
carnation — the atonement — grace — the vir- 
tue of the sacraments as means and instru- 
ments of the gifts and graces of which they 



320 



are signs, — I can easily suppose that such 
persons will have little zeal about the caput 
mortuum of religion which remains after 
this dissipation of the substance. The 
man who puts the Son of Mary upon a le- 
vel only with the son of Sophronisca, — who 
acknowledges in our Lord Jesus Christ no- 
thing more than the Socrates of Jerusalem, 
— will feel, I suppose, no more zeal for the 
propagation of the moral of the gospel 
(which is the whole of such a man's Chris- 
tianity) than I feel to propagate the dry 
moral of Socrates or of Marcus Antoninus. 
But every man that has a religion that de- 
serves the name cannot but have some- 
thing of a zeal for the propagation of it. I 
suppose, therefore, that the Roman Catho- 
lic priest has this zeal ; and, my Lords, I 
bear him no ill-will for it, — conscious that I 
have it too for our common Christianity, 



321 



and for that form of Christianity to which 
I am attached — the doctrine and rites of 
the reformed church of England. 

" But, my Lords, a man that knows an}^ 
thing of the world, and of the present state 
of the Christian religion in the world, will 
understand, that this zeal, however lauda- 
ble in itself, is a principle that must be laid 
under considerable restraint, otherwise it 
may do much mischief, — mischief to that 
which it is its object to serve — to religion. 
In the present state of things, a prudent 
man, who considers how the interests of 
churches and of states are connected and 
blended, will be sensible, that his zeal for 
the propagation of the particular tenets of 
his own sect upon many occasions must 
be repressed, — that it is a part of his reli-r 
gious duty to restrain it. But the public 
safety must not be trusted to the discretion 
of individuals : It is fit, therefore, and ne- 

x 



322 



cessary, that the laws should lay due re* 
straint upon the irregular sallies of an in- 
discreet zeal ; and, my Lords, this interfe- 
rence of the laws is the more necessary, be- 
cause the thing to be restrained is in itself 
not criminal. But, my Lords, I say, that 
the zeal of the Roman Catholic is very suf- 
ficiently restrained by our subsisting sta- 
tutes. My Lords, the statute of the 3d Jac* 
cap. 4. is at this day in full force against any 
person who shall attempt to draw away 
any one within his Majesty's dominions 
to the communion of the church of Rome. 
My Lords, by the 22d and 23d clauses of 
that statute, and by an older statute, the 23d 
of Eliz. cap. 1. which also is still in force, 
" it is high treason for any person, either 
upon the seas, or beyond the seas, or in any 
other place within the King's dominions, 
to reconcile or be reconciled to the Pope or 
See of Rome." To be reconciled indeed 



823 

is no longer an offence to be prosecuted 
under these or any other statutes ; because 
the statute of the 31st of the King says, 
" that no one complying with the condi- 
tions of that statute shall be liable to im- 
peachment or prosecution simply for being 
a Papist or reputed Papist ; or for profess- 
ing or being educated in the Popish reli- 
gion 5 or for hearing or saying mass ; or for 
being a priest or deacon ; or entering or 
belonging to anv ecclesiastical order or com- 
munity of the church of Rome ; or for be- 
ing present at, or performing, or observing, 
any rite, ceremony, practice, or observation, 
of the Popish religion ; or maintaining or 
assisting others therein;" provided, &c. 
But, my Lords, will any one point out to me 
the clause in the statute of the 31st of the 
King, or in any other statute now subsisting, 
which says that a person having reconciled 
or attempting to reconcile any other person 



324 



within the King's dominions to the Pope or 
See of Rome, shall not be impeached or pro- 
secuted under these statutes of Elizabeth 
and James as for the offence of high trea- 
son ; and, if convicted, shall not suffer as a 
traitor? And, my Lords, I ask, are not the 
penalties of high treason a sufficient re- 
straint, are they not all the restraint you can 
lay, upon the zeal of Roman Catholics ? 

" My Lords, I ought to ask pardon of the 
House for taking up so much of your time 
upon this subject of the danger of conver- 
sions ; because, in truth, it has little con- 
nexion with the bill ; for the bill takes 
no notice of this danger, and pretends not 
to provide any security against it. But, my 
Lords, I know that the apprehension of 
this danger is without doors one of the 
most popular arguments for the bill, and 
has procured it any favour that it has with 
the public. People in general have given 



325 



themselves no trouble to know more about 
this bill than that somehow or other it is 
against Popery, and particularly against the 
propagation of Popery by the emigrants 
from France : And you hear it said every 
day, in commendation of this bill, " Oh ! 
God forbid we should persecute them ! but 
the laws should take care that they do not 
pervert our own people." So say I, my 
Lords ; but then I say the care is already 
taken ; and I think it right to take this op- 
portunity of setting the public right upon 
this point — of showing that the supposed 
merit of the bill, in this particular, rests 
upon a misconception of the bill itself, and 
a misunderstanding of the law upon the 
subject as it actually stands. 

" But now, my Lords, I proceed to con- 
sider that apprehended danger which is one 
express and principal object of the bill ; a 
danger apprehended from the impunity 



/ 



326 



given by the statute of the 31st of the King, 
under conditions, to Roman Catholic tutors 
and schoolmasters ; of which these fugitives 
from France, it is supposed, may avail 
themselves. 

" My Lords, the fact must be admitted, 
that among the fugitives from France are 
many regulars of both sexes. The monks, 
however, are very few ; and the far greater- 
proportion both of monks and nuns are the 
natural-born subjects of his Majesty, — Eng- 
lish monks and English nuns, who were set- 
tled in convents of their own in France 
and Flanders, because they could make no 
such settlement in their own country. Their 
houses have been demolished, their proper- 
ty plundered, their persons harassed ; and 
they have fled into the arms of their mo- 
ther-country in the hope of finding a shel- 
ter here from the fury of Antichrist in a 
foreign land. With these, some French 



327 



monastics of both sexes have made their 
escape ; and they are now all settled in dif- 
ferent parts of the country, in houses in 
which the remaining members of each con- 
vent live in common. The monks, as I 
have said, are few, — English Benedictines 
settled at Acton Barnell, near Shrewsbury; 
English Benedictines at Vernon Hall, near 
Liverpool ; English Franciscans, near North 
Allerton ; and English Dominicans at Cars- 
halton, in Surry. The persons of these 
four different orders amount to no more 
than twenty-six ; and these, with the addi- 
tion of five miserable Cistercians of the or- 
der of La Trappe settled near Wareham, 
and five Carthusians near Wardour Castle, 
make the sum-total of monks, English and 
French, settled in England. The nuns, 
my Lords, are more numerous ; consisting 
of the surviving members of twenty-two 
convents in all, of which eighteen were 



328 



English, and four only French, — the Ber- 
nardine Dames, from Abbey Desprez at 
Douay, settled at Pentonville, near Isling- 
ton ; the ladies of the order of St Francis 
de Sales, settled near Little Chelsea ; the 
BenedictineDames of Montargis, at Bodney 
Hall, in Norfolk ; and the Hospitalieres of 
Cambray, at or near Ilford, in Essex. The 
whole number of these four French con- 
vents is, I believe, very small. Of the 
eighteen English, I could state distinctly 
the different orders, the settlements, and 
the numbers of each ; for I believe I am 
possessed of pretty accurate and authentic 
information : But I shall not trouble your 
Lordships with this detail ; I shall only say 
that the gross number certainly exceeds not 
three hundred and sixty persons. 

u My Lords, all these persons (with the ex- 
ception of the ten French monks) have qua- 
lified themselves to be teachers of youth, 



329 



according to the statute of the 31st of the 
King ; and they have opened schools at 
their respective habitations, — the monks for 
boys, and the nuns for young ladies. 

" My Lords, I, for my part, am well 
pleased that the Roman Catholics of this 
country are at last furnished with the means 
of education for their sons and daughters 
within the kingdom. Mv Lords, it was a 
cruel and a weak policy to compel the Ro- 
man Catholics to send their children abroad 
for that liberal education which they could 
not receive at home ; and I believe your 
Lordships will agree with me, that a Ro- 
man Catholic education at home is a much 
better thing than a Roman Catholic edu- 
cation in a foreign country. My Lords, 
for this reason I rejoice at the institution 
of respectable Roman Catholic schools in 
different parts of the kingdom. But the 
friends of the bill, I suppose, will say " It 



330 



is very fit that the Roman Catholics should 
have the liberty and the means of educating 
their own children in their own principles ; 
but let us take care that they pervert not 
our children ; let them be restrained from 
taking the children of Protestants to board 
or educate." Agreed, my Lords ; this re- 
striction should certainly be laid upon them. 
Will your Lordships give me leave to re- 
cite the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 16th clauses 
of the 31st of the King. " No ecclesiastic 
or other person of the Roman Catholic re- 
ligion, who shall take and subscribe the 
oath, &c. shall be prosecuted in any court 
for teaching or instructing youth as a tu- 
tor or schoolmaster : Provided, that no 
person professing the Roman Catholic re- 
ligion shall obtain or hold the master- 
ship of any endowed college or school 
for education of youth, or keep a school in 
either of the Universities : And provided, 



331 



that no schoolmaster professing the Ro- 
man Catholic religion shall receive into his 
school the child of any Protestant father : 
And provided, that no person professing 
the Roman Catholic religion shall keep 
a school till his or her name and descrip- 
tion shall have been recorded at the quar- 
ter-sessions, by the clerk of the peace, &c. 
And no person offending in the premises 
[ii e. the premises of these three provisos) 
shall receive any benefit of this act" No 
schoolmaster, therefore, professing the Ro- 
man Catholic religion, who shall receive 
into his school the child of any Protest- 
ant father, is to have any benefit of this 
act. My Lords, if he has no benefit of this 
act, he is liable to the penalties of all the 
subsisting statutes against Popish school- 
masters. And what are those penalties, my 
Lords?— By the 23dEliz. (cap. 1. sect. 6.) 
P Any person who shall keep or maintain 



332 



a schoolmaster which shall not repair to 
church, or be allowed by the bishop or or- 
dinary of the diocese, shall forfeit 10/. for 
every month; and such schoolmaster or 
teacher presuming to teach contrary to this 
act, shall be disabled from teaching, and 
shall be imprisoned for one year." Such, 
my Lords, are the penalties by the statute 
of Elizabeth, — upon the person retaining 
a Popish schoolmaster, a forfeit of 10/. per 
month ; upon the schoolmaster, disabili- 
ty, and imprisonment for one whole year. 
But, my Lords, these being not enough, 
by the 1st Jac. cap. 4. " No person shall 
keep any school, or be a schoolmaster, out 
of any of the universities or colleges of this 
realm, except it be in some public or free 
grammar-school, or in some such noble- 
man's or gentleman's house as are not re- 
cusants, or where the same schoolmaster 
shall be specially licensed thereunto by the 



333 



archbishop, bishop, or guardian of the spi- 
ritualities of that diocese." And the pe- 
nalty, my Lords, for offence against this 
statute, as well upon the schoolmaster as 
the party that shall retain or maintain him, 
is a forfeit upon each of them separately or 
40s. a day. Forty shillings a day, my Lords, 
seems a sufficient forfeit to keep any Po- 
pish schoolmaster or schoolmistress in pret- 
ty good order. But it is said these old laws 
are a mere dead letter, they are so difficult 
to be enforced. Difficult to be enforced, 
my Lords ! I maintain that no law is more 
easy to be enforced than these penal sta- 
tutes against Popish schoolmasters. My 
Lords, the statute of King James is a bu- 
siness of qui tarn ; for the forfeit is half to 
the King and half to the person that sues ; 
And will any man of common information 
say, that a prosecution by indictment for a 
misdemeanour under this new bill will be 



334: 



an easier proceeding than a qui tain action ? 
What ! my Lords, is a pettifogging attor- 
ney nowhere to be found, who would lend 
his services in this righteous business of 
bringing Popish schoolmasters and school- 
mistresses to condign punishment? But 
then, it is said, it would be odious to enforce 
these penal laws. Would it so, my Lords ? 
— then I say it is infinitely more odious to 
be framing new ones. 

" My Lords, I now come to the greatest 
danger of all, in the apprehension of the 
framers of this bill ; which it is the princi- 
pal object of the bill to prevent, — the dan- 
ger that, in consequence of the numerous 
settlements of nuns and monks, but chief- 
ly of nuns, for the monks are so few that 
they may be very properly overlooked, — 
that in consequence of these settlements, 
monastic institutions may gain a permanent 
establishment in this country. 



335 

u I have stated to your Lordships, that 
English nuns of eighteen different orders, 
besides four sets of French nuns, are set- 
tled in different parts of the country, — each 
order in a house of its own ; where the per- 
sons of the same order live together (but a- 
part from those of other orders), and, other- 
wise than in the business of education, mix 
not with the world. Now, my Lords, if 
any ten or twenty or a larger number of 
these ladies should choose to take a great 
house, where they may live together as 
they have been used to do all their lives, 
and lead their lives according to their old 
habits ; getting up in the morning and re- 
tiring at night at stated hours ; dining upon 
fish on some days of the week, upon eggs 
on others, — I profess I can discover no 
crime, no harm, no danger, in all this ; and 
I cannot imagine why we should be anx- 
ious to prevent it. My Lords, I say it? 



336 



would be great cruelty to attempt to pre- 
vent it ; for, my Lords, these women could 
find no comfort in any society but their 
own, nor in any other way of life. My 
Lords, they cannot mix with the lower or- 
der of the people : They are ladies, well- 
born (many of them indeed of high ex- 
traction), and of cultivated minds. And 
yet, my Lords, they are not prepared to 
mix in the politer circles. Enamoured^ 
by long habit, of the quiet and solitude 
of their cells, — absorbed in the pleasures 
of what they call the interior life, — these 
women would have no relish for the 
exterior life of fashionable ladies. My 
Lords, it would be martyrdom to these 
retired, sober women, to be compelled to 
lay aside the cowl and simple habit of their 
order, to besmear their cheeks with Vermil- 
lion, and plaster their throats with litharge, 
— to clap upon their heads an ugly lump of 



337 

manufactured hair, in shape and colour as 
different as possible from the natural cover- 
ing,* — and then, with elbows bared to the 
shoulder, to sally forth to the pleasures of 
the midnight rout, to distribute the cards 
at loo, or, soaring to sublimer joys, to rat- 
tle the dice-box at the games of hazard ! 
Exquisite, ravishing, as these delights must 
be confessed to be to those who have a 
well-formed taste, these stupid women, my 
Lords, have not that taste ; and if you will 
not permit them to live in their own dull 
way, you should have strangled them when 
they first landed. " Who ever thought of 
strangling them?" say the friends of the 
bill ; " or who would hinder them from liv- 
ing quietly among themselves in their own 
habitations ? But what we fear is, that they 
will inveigle our own young women, — that 
they will profess new nuns in this country, 
— that so a succession will be provided, and 



338 

monastic institutions established, not only 
for a time, but rendered perpetual; and 
that is the danger which this bill is intend- 
ed to prevent." My Lords, I confess my 
mind is not much alarmed with apprehen- 
sions of this danger. My Lords, I think 
we have a pretty good security against it 
for the present, in the general inclination 
of the minds of my fair countrywomen ; 
which, I am persuaded, is not bent towards 
retirement and seclusion : But the fancies, 
to be sure, as well as the fashions of Eng- 
lish ladies are liable to change ; and there- 
fore I agree, that small as the danger seems 
to be at present, the laws ought to pro- 
vide against it. But, my Lords, I ask, 
upon this point as upon the former, have 
not the laws provided ? Will your Lord- 
ships take the trouble once more to turn 
to the 31st of the King : How do your 
Lordships read the 17th section ? — u Pro- 



339 



vided also, and be it farther enacted, that 
nothing in this act contained shall make 
it lawful to found, endow, or establish 
(lawful to found, to endow if founded, or if 
founded and endowed, to establish — domi- 
cile in this country) any religious order or 
society of persons bound by monastic or 
religious vows ; or to found, endow, or esta- 
blish any school, academy, or college, by 
persons professing the Roman Catholic re- 
ligion, within these realms or the dominions 
thereunto belonging : And that all uses, 
trusts, and dispositions, whether of real or 
personal property, which immediately be- 
fore the said 24th day of June 1791 might 
be deemed to be superstitious or unlawful, 
shall continue to be so deemed and taken ; 
anything in this act contained notwithstand- 
ing." Nothing, your Lordships see, in this 
act contained, is to make it lawful to found, 
endow, or establish any monastic society 



340 



in this country. If nothing in this act of 
the 31st of the King makes it lawful, I am 
sure it is not made lawful by any other 
act : It is completely unlawful ; and if 
any of the religious ladies settled here at- 
tempt to establish and perpetuate their or- 
der in this country by professing new sisters 
here, they are guilty in every such instance 
of a gross overt act of Popery; and the 
whole park of the artillery of the penal 
code points at them its dreadful thunders. 
And not only so, my Lords, but no mo- 
nastic society can take any property, real 
or personal : Property of any kind, or 
granted in any way, " devised, bequeathed, 
or settled upon trust, so that the profits 
may be applied to any abbey, priory, con- 
vent, nunnery, college of Jesuits, seminary 
or school of Popish education," is forfeited 
to the King, for the use of the public, by 
the 1st Geo. sect. 2. cap. 50. And I think, 



341 

my Lords, there is little danger that any 
monastic society without funds of any sort 
for its subsistence will be of long dura- 
tion. 

" But, my Lords, I know reports are 
confidently circulated that these laws are 
disregarded, and that new professions have 
taken place in great numbers among the 
nuns of the different orders since their ar- 
rival here. My Lords, as to the great 
numbers, I disbelieve it : That some have 
taken place, I believe ; but they have been 
very few; and when the particular cases are 
examined, there will be found to be very 
little ground of complaint. 

(The Bishop then related two cases : Up- 
on which the Lord Chancellor rose, and 
observed, that it might be very improper 
to proceed in this particular detail ; since, 
whatever might be said in extenuation, the 
thing was certainly a high offence against 



342 



the laws ; and the discovery of particular 
instances might subject the persons con- 
cerned to severe prosecutions.) 

" My Lords, I thank the noble and 
learned lord for stopping me : I am sen- 
sible of the indiscretion of entering upon 
this detail, and shall proceed no farther 
in it. But the necessity of abstaining 
from it, which the noble and learned lord 
has suggested, greatly strengthens my ar- 
gument. To profess a new sister, even in 
the most excusable cases, is now stated bv 
great authority to be a high offence against 
the existing laws; exposing the persons 
concerned to the danger of very severe pe- 
nalties : The noble and learned lord there- 
fore agrees with me that the thing is for- 
bidden, under the highest penalties, by 
the laws we already have : I hope, there- 
fore, he will agree with me in the conclu- 
sion that no new law is necessary upon 



343 



this subject. My Lords, with respect to 
the fact of the professions that have taken 
place, I shall only say in general, that it is 
my full belief and persuasion, that not one 
has taken place among our English nuns 
but in cases similar to the two I have de- 
scribed ; in which the professed were 
young ladies that were upon their proba- 
tion in the convent abroad, before the 
storm fell upon the convents. Such, and 
such only, as I believe, have been profes- 
sed in this country since the arrival of the 
convents here. And, my Lords, I must 
say more for them : I have the greatest 
reason to believe, that even in such cases 
the offence will not be repeated amongst 
the English nuns : I have the greatest rea- 
son to believe, and could almost venture to 
assure the House, that the vicars apostolic, 
well aware of the illegality . of the practice, 
have cautioned their people against it, and 



344 

will use their utmost influence to prevent 
it in the future. My Lords, in saying this 
with respect only to the English nuns, I 
would not be understood to admit that 
any worse cases have happened among the 
French sisterhoods, or that the thing is 
likely to be repeated among them : But 
with respect to them, my Lords, I speak 
with less confidence, because I have not 
means of information equally accurate ; and 
I conceive that the vicars apostolic may not 
have the same command over them as they 
have over the English. But I must observe, 
my Lords, with respect to them, that al- 
though the penal laws and the statutes of re- 
lief from penalties apply equally, as I re- 
marked long since, to natural-born subjects 
and to aliens, yet if these alien nuns should 
be so ill-advised as to take advantage of the 
indulgence which our statutes extend to 
them, to do any thing that may justly offend 



345 



or alarm the public, the summary opera- 
tion of the alien bill, my Lords, hangs over 
them. So that, with the laws respecting 
Popery, equally applying to subjects and to 
aliens, with the addition of the alien bill to 
keep aliens in order in all points, I con- 
ceive our security against the dangers which 
this bill would obviate to be most com- 
plete. 

" But now, my Lords, let us look at the 
means of security which this bill would 
provide ; which I affirm to be most uncon- 
stitutional. 

" My Lords, the preamble of the bill 
states, that " numbers of persons belong- 
ing to certain religious orders or commu- 
nities have lately come into this kingdom." 
— Agreed, my Lords ; the fact is as stated. 
Then the preamble assumes, " that it is 
expedient to permit, under certain restric- 
tions, their residence here." — Agreed again, 



346 



my Lords : It is very convenient to per- 
mit their residence ; for, with respect to the 
far greater part of them, their residence, 
upon the condition of their taking the oaths 
required by law, cannot but be permitted. 
The nuns in the proportion of nine to two, 
and the monks in the proportion of twenty- 
six to ten, are natural-born subjects; and ha- 
ving taken the oaths, have a right to reside 
here, in their own country, without any re- 
strictions. Well, my Lords, since here 
they are, and since they cannot be sent 
away, the bill wisely proceeds to enact, 
that " from the passing of this act, it shall 
be lawful for his Majesty, his heirs and 
successors, when they shall think fit, to 
grant to such religious orders or commu- 
nities professing the Roman Catholic faith, 
his royal licence and authority to continue 
to reside in these realms during the conti- 
nuance of the present war, and one year 



347 



after." — To continue to reside ? My Lords, 
for the continued residence of the indivi- 
duals no licence is wanted ; it is a matter 
of right with respect to most of them : The 
continued residence therefore which is to 
be licensed, must be understood of their 
residence as orders or communities — their 
residence as monastic corporations, in that 
form and shape ; and so the words that 
follow explain it : The King is impower- 
ed to grant them his licence to reside, 
" and to perform and observe, within their 
respective houses, the rites and ordinances 
of their respective institutions; any law or 
statute to the contrary notwithstanding." 
This, my Lords, is what I maintain to be 
perfectly unconstitutional. Observe, my 
Lords, — they are licensed to perform the 
rites and ordinances — of what, my Lords? 
— Not simply of the Roman Catholic re- 
ligion, but of their respective institutions. 



348 



My Lords, did the framers of this bill 
know what will be allowed, or rather did 
they know what will not be allowed, under 
such a licence ? Penance, your Lordships 
know, is a rite of the Roman Catholic re- 
ligion : But penance in religious houses 
is administered by the order and direction 
of the superior ; and as there administered, 
it often consists in imprisonment for any 
length of time, and in other corporal se- 
verities. Good God ! my Lords, and are 
the superiors of these Parliamentary mo- 
nasteries to be impowered, by his Majes- 
ty's royal licence, to imprison and otherwise 
maltreat the persons of his Majesty's sub- 
jects? But, my Lords, this is not all : Did 
the framers of this bill know how, according 
to the notions of Roman Catholics, a new 
monastery may be founded ?— My Lords, 
it cannot be done by act of Parliament : 
The Roman Catholics will not consider it 



349 



as a monastery, without some considerable 
interposition of the authority of the eccle- 
siastical superiors, — of the bishop of the 
diocese, in any country where the church 
of Rome is the established church; except, 
indeed, in the case of an order of nuns 
specially exempted from the jurisdiction of 
the bishop, and subject to some order of 
monks ; which is the case of many : But in 
this country, where the church of Ptome 
is only tolerated, I apprehend the vicars 
apostolic stand in the place of the bishop 
of the diocese, or other ecclesiastical supe- 
rior. But, however that may be, my Lords, 
the ecclesiastical authority, in whatever 
hands it may be lodged, must be interposed 
for the regular constitution of a monas- 
tery or a convent. And so, by this licence, 
my Lords, the King is to give not barely 
a religious but a civil political effect to 
these acts of the hierarchy of the Roman 



350 



- church. Still, my Lords, this is not all : The 
Roman Catholic bishop cannot act in such 
a business of himself ; he must be special- 
ly impowered by a bull of the Pope. Your 
Lordships know that the importation or 
putting in ure of any faculty, dispensation, 
bull, or instrument whatever, of the See of 
Rome, is prohibited by a multitude of sta- 
tutes, under the highest penalties : But 
with all these prohibitions of the law, the 
King by this bill will be impowered, in 
the instance of settling a monastery or con- 
vent here, to dispense. My Lords, have 
we forgotten what it was that lost James 
the Second his crown ? — was it not his at- 
tempting to dispense with the laws in that 
very branch in which this bill would place 
a dispensing power in the hands of the 
Sovereign ? My Lords, I see but few of my 
brethren upon that bench ; but among the 
few that are present, I have the satisfaction 



351 

to see a successor of one of the seven who 
had the honour to be committed to the 
Tower for the opposition they gave to the 
arbitrary measures of James the Second: 
My Lords, I trust that right reverend pre- 
late will think it his duty, for the honour of 
his see, to give me his most strenuous sup- 
port in the resistance I am now making 
to this dangerous, alarming, unconstitu- 
tional project. 

" But now, my Lords, I will suppose 
that your Lordships find these objections 
of no weight, — which I hope will not be the 
case : But suppose the bill passed ; suppose 
the licences granted ; they are to be only 
for a term (the probable term perhaps a 
pretty good one), till the end of the war 
and one year after ; — my Lords, what is to 
become of these women when that period 
shall arrive ? Are we then, when they are 
comfortably settled, attached to their habi- 



352 



tations, advanced in years, — -are we then to 
say to helpless inoffensive women " Come, 
ladies, turn out ! your term is expired ; 
you can stay no longer here?" My Lords, 
this can never happen ; they are in no 
danger : I again repeat, they are natural- 
born subjects of the King — born to the 
rights and franchises of subjects : They 
have bound their allegiance to the Sove- 
reign in the terms which the law prescribes ; 
and it never can be said to them " Turn 
out." But I hold up this circumstance to 
your Lordships' notice as a manifest indi- 
cation of the spirit in which this bill has 
been framed. 

" My Lords, being put to my shifts, as 
I mentioned at the beginning, to discover 
what the friends of this bill could say for 
it, I have hearkened' out very much to the 
pro and con about it in company. One 
thing I have heard urged in favour of the 



353 

bill is this, — that the Roman Catholics very 
much dislike it : They dislike it ; ergo^ 
it must be a most delectable bill ! A very 
pleasant argument, my Lords ! Only con- 
sider how far this will go. If a bill were 
brought in to repeal the 31st of the King, 
the Roman Catholics, I will answer for 
them, would very much dislike that. Would 
your Lordships, for that reason, pass it? 
Will your Lordships apply this principle to 
other bills now pending? There is a cer- 
tain bill before the House, which the mil- 
lers exceedingly dislike : Will your Lord- 
ships therefore pass it at once, without any 
farther investigation of its merits, or any 
hearing of their objections ? Such a pro- 
ceeding would save your Lordships much 
time and trouble ; and the final conclusion 
might, in that instance, for aught I know, 
be very right : But, my Lords, this way of 

z 



354 



coming to it would not be very consistent 
with the wisdom and justice of Parliament. 

" My Lords, there is one part of this bill, 
and one part only, which I cannot say I 
wholly disapprove : It is that clause which 
requires Roman Catholic schoolmasters and 
schoolmistresses of a certain description to 
make an annual return of their schools to 
the clerk of the peace. My Lords, I think 
it would be very proper that Government 
should be informed from time to time of 
the actual state of all Roman Catholic 
schools: Rut I would rather that this should 
make a part of a general bill for the regu- 
lation of all schools ; a matter that loudly 
calls for the attention of the Legislature. 
Time was, my Lords, when schools were 
under some control ; but since the statute 
of the 19th of the King for the farther re- 
lief of Protestant dissenting ministers, they 



355 

have been under none. A schoolmaster 
has only to declare that he is a Christian 
and a Protestant dissenting from the esta- 
blished church of England, and to profess ( 
his general belief in the Holy Scriptures in 
the terms required of dissenting ministers, 
— and no one has a right to ask him " Why 
have you opened school here ? whom do 
you teach ? or what do you teach them ?" 
My Lords, the consequence is, that schools 
of much worse things than Popery abound 
in all parts of the kingdom, — schools of Ja- 
cobinical religion, and of Jacobinical poli- 
tics ; that is to say, schools of atheism and 
disloyalty, — schools in the shape and dis- 
guise of charity-schools and Sunday-schools, 
in which the minds of the children of the 
very lowest orders are enlightened ; that is, 
taught to despise religion and the laws, and 
all subordination. Books have been com- 
posed for the use of such schools, of the 



356 

most dangerous tendency. My* Lords, I 
know that this is going on in various parts 
of the kingdom, and particularly in the 
neighbourhood of the metropolis. I hope 
that in another session the attention of the 
Legislature will be turned to this most im- 
portant business : But it is much too late 
in this to take up any general plan of re- 
gulation ; and there is nothing that presses 
for any immediate regulation beyond what 
we already have of Roman Catholic schools 
in particular. My Lords, it is my persua- 
sion, that the Roman Catholics of this coun- 
try are in general good subjects, loyally at- 
tached to his Majesty's person and to the 
constitution. I must say more, my Lords, 
though not more than I have said upon for- 
mer occasions in this place : I am per- 
suaded, that of all sects dissenting from 
the established church, there is not one! in 
the present times from which either church 



357 

or state has less to fear than from the Ro- 
man Catholics. My Lords, in this state of 
things, the danger is not to the church of 
England from Popery : The danger to be 
more dreaded is that which threatens us 
all from the common enemy of the Chris- 
tian name. Nothing could be more oppo- 
site to the general interests of Christianity 
— nothing more opposite to the interests 
of the state — nothing more opposite to the 
interests of the Protestant religion — than 
any measure that might conduce, as the 
passing of this act would conduce, to a re- 
vival of the rancour between Protestants 
and Roman Catholics ; which, I flatter my- 
self is dying away, if we can but persuade 
ourselves to let what is well alone. 

" My Lords, I could say much more 
against this bill ; but I have taken up too 
much of your time : What I have said is 
more than sufficient to warrant the motion 



358 



I now make. I humbly move your Lord- 
ships, that this bill be committed for this 
day three months." 



The motion was opposed by the Bishop 
of Winchester ; warmly supported by 
Lord Grenville ; and carried, without a 
division. Of course, the original bill was 
lost. 



ON THE PRELIMINARIES OF PEACE BETWEEN 
ENGLAND AND THE FRENCH REPUBLIC ; 

November 3, 1801. 



In the end of the year 1801, preliminary 
articles of peace were concluded between 
Great Britain and the French Republic. 
Perhaps no peace was ever made on which 
rejoicings were more general, or satisfac- 
tion more universally and loudly expres- 
sed. There were however some statesmen, 
formidable from their character and their 
talents rather tharf their numbers, who 
professed an early and unequivocal dissa- 
tisfaction at the peace. Their opposition 
could not be ascribed to antipatriotic mo- 
tives ; for during the whole course of the 



360 



war, they had been conspicuous in their en- 
deavours to animate the country, and in- 
deed all Europe, against the common ene- 
my : To represent them as men who pre- 
ferred war to peace, was an effort of gross 
and malignant injustice, which their cha- 
racters, as exhibited on every occasion, evi- 
dently refuted. They did however prefer 
the late war to the present peace ; and their 
reasons, ably and amply detailed by them- 
selves in the two Houses of Parliament, 
are the materials* from which a judgment 
must be formed of the correctness of their 
views and the justness of their inferences. 
Among this little band was Dr Horsley, 
Bishop of Rochester ; who, when the ad- 
dress to the Throne expressive of approba- 
tion of the peace was moved by Lord 
Romney in the House of Lords, on the 3d 
of November 1801, made the following 
speech. 



361 



" MY LORDS, 

" After what I have heard in 
this House this night from the gravest au- 
thority, — in perfect agreement with what I 
before had heard elsewhere from authority 
not less respectable, — I ought perhaps to be 
diffident of my own judgment, when it 
stands in opposition to the sentiments of 
those whose opinions I have long been in 
the habit of looking up to with respect and 
deference ; who may be supposed, from the 
situations which they have held in public 
life, to be more competent than I can be 
to forrn an accurate judgment upon ques- 
tions like that which is now before us. 
Nevertheless, when a resolution has been 
moved, that this House should approach the 
Throne with an address expressive of ap- 
probation of the preliminaries of peace with 
the French Republic which have been laid 
upon the table, I cannot consistently with 



362 

my Parliamentary duty give my vote of as- 
sent to the motion, unless a conviction were 
wrought upon my mind by argument, that 
these preliminary articles are, at least in 
the leading points, such as any one who 
pays regard to the interests and honour of 
the country may conscientiously approve. 
My Lords, I shall not attempt at this late 
hour ? to go into the detail into which I 
thought to go when I came down to the 
House this night. The attempt indeed is 
rendered unnecessary, by the great ability 
with which the subject has already been 
discussed, by the noble earl who first rose 
in opposition to the motion, and the noble 
lord who followed on the same side. I 
shall therefore compress my argument as 
much as possible, and state my reasons ge- 
nerally for dissenting from the motion, 



f Three in the morning. 



363 



But I think myself obliged to declare my 
reasons, in a brief and general way; because, 
having the misfortune to disapprove in this 
instance of a measure of the Executive 
Government, which, as I guess, is likely 
to receive the approbation of a great ma- 
jority of this House, it would not be re- 
spectful either to the House or the Mini- 
ster to give a silent vote of opposition ; and 
I am the more anxious upon this occasion 
to explain the reasons of the vote which I 
shall give, because I am aware that it may 
seem strange that any one should rise from 
the bench on which I have the honour to 
sit to disapprove of peace. 

" My Lords, I hope my mind is not in- 
sensible to the miseries of war : I am well 
aware how much it is the duty of the mini- 
sters of the gospel to promote what they can 
the tranquillity and concord of mankind, 
and to stop the effusion of human blood* 



364 



God forbid, my Lords, I should ever be 
wanting in that duty : God forbid I should 
not be the advocate of peace. My Lords, I 
now rise the advocate of peace ; for, because 
I would be the advocate of the substance 
and reality, I must and will be upon all 
occasions the open and decided enemy of 
the mere name, the pretence, and the 
counterfeit of peace. And what is any 
peace, but a mere name, a pretence, and a 
counterfeit, which contains in it the seed 
and germ of everlasting wars ? And such, 
in my judgment is the peace which, accord- 
ing to the preliminaries upon the table, his 
Majesty's present Ministers are concluding 
with the French Republic. My Lords, I 
shall not go into the detail of the arguments 
which this topic opens : The subject might 
at any time be too much for my abilities ; 
it certainly at present is too much for my 
strength. In mercy to your Lordships and 



365 



myself, I will be very general and brief. 
The general view of this wide subject, I can 
comprise, I think, in few words. 

" What is the present situation of France, 
my Lords ? — Her present situation is, that 
she is possessed of a continental territory 
which comprehends nothing less than the 
whole body of the ancient western empire* 
I call all this the territory of France, my 
Lords, not forgetting that much of it be- 
longs to other kingdoms and states which 
she calls her allies : But this makes no dif- 
ference ; for such is the French power, that 
those whom she honours with the name of 
allies are in truth her subjects, or, to speak 
more properly, her slaves. This vast tract 
of territory is covered with a population far 
exceeding any thing that was spread over 
the same surface when it was subject to the 
Romans ; and this immense population is 
at the command and disposal of a govern-* 



366 



ment more energetic, more united, more 
prompt in execution, than the government 
of Rome was under any of her best em- 
perors. This vast empire is fenced on the 
one side by a barrier of rivers, mountains, 
lakes, rocks, forts, which render it inacces- 
sible to any of the neighbouring states that 
would be the most likely to assail it : On 
the other side, the termination is the whole 
length of sea-coast from the mouth of the 
Texel to the harbour of Brest ; a coast 
which will be particularly formidable to 
this country when France shall have got 
up a navy ; and that in no long time she 
will have a navy, your Lordships cannot 
doubt, if you recollect what vast forests of 
timber clothe the sides of the mountains 
which crown the banks of the Rhine in a 
great part of its course. Now, my Lords, I 
am very well aware, that our naval strength, 
and the successes of our navy, had the war 



367 

been continued, could never have deprived 
France of any part of these vast continen- 
tal dominions : But, my Lords, I contend, 
that for this very reason this country ought 
to have retained the acquisitions of her 
naval victories ; which were ours by the very 
same right of conquest by which France 
holds the greater part of her continental 
empire ; and would have been in our hands 
a great drawback, as it were, from her ge- 
neral strength. My Lords, this has been 
so fully argued by the two noble lords to 
whom I alluded before, that it is needless 
for me to dwell upon it : I shall only say, 
that no answer has yet been given to the 
arguments of these noble lords, — no answer 
I mean, which takes hold of my mind. 
Noble lords indeed have entered into mi- 
nute calculations of the value of each arti- 
cle of our cessions taken singly ; Minorca 
is worth only so much, — Malta only so 



368 

touch, — and so on. But, my Lords, this 
is not at all the question, What might be 
the value and importance of each separate- 
ly ? — the question is, What is the value and 
importance of the aggregate ? My Lords, 
what I ask of Ministers is this : Why have 
they voluntarily ceded to France, without 
any compensation, in addition to their con- 
tinental empire, — of which, by the conti- 
nuance of the war, I grant, we could not 
hope to dispossess them, — but why have 
they ceded to them, in addition to that, the 
absolute sovereignty of the Mediterranean 
Sea ? — for that, your Lordships must per-* 
ceive, is the effect of the cession of every 
island and every port in the Mediterranean 
and the Adriatic* Then for our conquests 
in the West Indies. But here I am stop- 
ped : Noble lords say, that the cession of 
these same West Indian islands was a part 
of the project of negotiation in 1797 ; that 



369 

in effect that project received the sanction 
of Parliament, by the address which upon 
that occasion we carried to the Throne ; 
and that Parliament cannot now disapprove 
the cessions to which it consented upon 
that former occasion. My Lords, I very- 
well remember that the cession of those 
islands entered into the projet of 1797 ; 
and I admit that the cession at that time 
was sanctioned by the address of Parlia- 
ment : But, my Lords, I must deny that 
the sanction given to that cession then 
binds us to an approbation of the same 
cession now ; for although the islands ceded 
are in name the same, in value to the 
French they are very different. My Lords, 
ask the French themselves : Their own 
writers say " We receive back the islands 
of St Lucie, Martinique, and Tobago, im- 
proved and enriched by the culture, the 
industry, and with the capital of British 
2 A 



370 

subjects." My Lords, they say more ; they 
say that these islands have no value but 
what they derive from having been some 
time in the possession of the; English. 
Now, my Lords, this being the case, the 
value of these islands must be infinitely 
greater now than it was in the year 1797 ; 
because they have been four years longer 
in our possession ; and the cession of them 
might be a measure of sound policy in the 
year 1797, and a measure of very weak po- 
licy in the year 1801. Then, my Lords, I 
ask again, Why have we given the French 
the key of readmission to their Asiatic pos- 
sessions, by the cession of Pondicherry ? — - 
which in a few years, I fear, will render 
our boasted conquest of the Mysore use- 
less, if not detrimental, to this country: 
W e shall have made the conquest not for 
ourselves, but for the French. Indeed I 
fear, that by the effect of this peace, it is not 



371 



for Britain, but for France, that in every 
quarter of the globe our brave sailors and 
soldiers have bled and conquered. 

" My Lords, what I dread as the worst 
consequence of this peace, is the revival of 
the spirit of Jacobinism in this country. 
My Lords, in this country the spirit of 
Jacobinism is revived : We have already 
seen unequivocal symptoms of it. I al- 
lude not in this to the tumultuous joy of 
the rabble of this metropolis, when they 
dragged the two Frenchmen about the 
streets : I found my opinion of the resusci- 
tation of Jacobinism on the sentiments 
publicly avowed by persons who move in a 
much higher sphere ; who have dared to 
say, that " The terms of this peace are not 
bad enough for Great Britain — not good 
enough for France : That the interests of 
mankind demand that France should be 
exalted and Great Britain humbled," My 



372 

Lords, I still have hope that this daring 
spirit will be overpowered and kept down 
by the energies of internal government. I 
should think it a great calamity indeed if 
that should take place which some noble 
lords seem to wish, — if the two bills should 
be repealed which I deem the essential 
barriers of the constitution ; not, as some 
affect to think them, infringements of it. 

" My Lords, I have freely spoken my 
sentiments. I hope my warmth has not be- 
trayed me into expressions personally dis- 
respectful to any of his Majesty's Mini- 
sters from whom I have the misfortune to 
differ upon this question. In this very 
measure, which I disapprove, I give them 
entire credit, not only for great integri- 
ty, but I suppose they have been influ- 
enced by considerations which might in 
some degree deserve the attention of great 
and able statesmen, as no doubt they are; 



373 



and were I single in the disapprobation of 
what they have done, I should be very 
willing to suppose that it was owing to the 
inferiority of my own talents that I saw 
things in another light than they. Never- 
theless, my own vote must be determined 
by my own judgment. 

" Before I sit down, I must say one thing 
more. The sentiments which I have now 
delivered to your Lordships, I have never 
given to the public in any other manner 
nor in any other place. I think it neces- 
sary to make this declaration ; because I 
find a report is got abroad, and has ob- 
tained credit among my friends, that I have 
been the author of certain letters addressed 
to the noble Secretary of State for Foreign 
Affairs, which have lately appeared in the 
public prints. * My Lords, I declare, that 



Of the letters alluded to, Mr Cobbett was the author. 



374 



however I may agree in the opinions con- 
tained in those letters (as I agree indeed en- 
tirely), — whatever I may think of the infor- 
mation and abilities of the writer (of which I 
think very highly), — yet I declare, upon my 
honour, I am not the author of them, nor 
have I any knowledge of the author. My 
Lords, I hold my situation as a lord of 
Parliament much too high, to condescend 
to attack a noble Secretary of State in a 
newspaper, or in any other manner than 
as I now do, upon my legs in this place." 



Minority. 



Marquis of Buckingham. 
Earl of Pembroke. 
Earl of Warwick. 
Earl Fitzwilliam. 
Earl of Radnor. 



Earl Spencer. 
Earl of Caernarvon. 
Bishop of Rochester. 
Lord Grenville. 
Lord Gwydir. 



ON LAWS RELATING TO SPIRITUAL PERSONS ; 
June 10, 1803. 



On a motion for the Peers resolving them- 
selves into a Committee of the whole 
House upon the bill entitled " an act to 
amend and render more effectual the laws 
relating to spiritual persons, &c." the Bi- 
shop of St Asaph * spoke as follows, 



" MY LORDS, 

" Upon the second reading of 
this bill, I took the liberty to declare, that, 



* Dr Horsley was translated from the see of Rochester 
to that of St Asaph in 1802. 



376 , 

with an entire approbation of the principle, 
I was dissatisfied with the fabric of it in 
many parts : And I craved the permission of 
the House, — which I understood that I ob- 
tained, — when the motion should be made 
which is now made for the House to re- 
solve itself into a committee upon the 
bill, to trouble your Lordships with a ge- 
neral review of the fabric of it ; which I 
thought would be the best way to explain 
the grounds of the numerous amendments 
which I should feel it my duty to pro- 
pose ; and would much shorten the discus- 
sion in the committee, which must other- 
wise go to a great length upon particular 
points. 

" My Lords, in the general review which 
I propose to take of the fabric of the bill, 
I cannot avoid, though it may not be per- 
fectly in order in the present stage of the 
bill, — but I cannot avoid saying something 



377 



upon the principle of it ; for which I must 
crave your Lordships' indulgence : For, in 
considering the fabric of the bill, I must 
not only consider the connexion of the 
different clauses with one another, but the 
relation of them all to the principle of the 
bill. But whatever I shall say upon the 
principle, will not be in impeachment, but 
in defence and support of it. 

" My Lords, the residence of the bene- 
ficed clergy upon their benefices, and the 
abstraction of the clergy from all secular 
occupations, are two points of principal im- 
portance in ecclesiastical discipline. It is 
impossible (generally speaking) that the 
parish-priest should discharge himself of 
the duty which he owes to the flock com- 
mitted to him, without his personal resi- 
dence among them. My Lords, the pub- 
lic instruction of the people from the pul- 
pit, the public celebration of the offices of 



378 

the church, are but a part — I had almost 
said they are but a small part — of the duty 
which the parish-priest owes to his pa- 
rishioners. My Lords, he owes it to them 
besides, to live among them, — to exhibit in 
his own deportment, and in the good order 
of his family, the example of a godly and 
religious life : He owes it to them, to be 
present to relieve the distresses of the poor 
by alms proportioned to his means ; and 
he owes it to them, to be ready, at the call 
of the sick and the dying, to administer 
those consolations which, to persons in 
those circumstances, can only be afforded 
by the word of reconciliation in the gospel, 
and by the means of reconciliation offered 
in the sacraments of the church, — to assist 
the penitent in making his peace with God. 
And how are these great duties to be per- 
formed by a clergyman not resident in his 
parish? My Lords, this is not all; the 



379 



resident clergyman is to maintain the pure 
dignified character of a clergyman, unem- 
barrassed and unsullied with the low occu- 
pations of the world. 

" My Lords, before the statute of King 
Henry the Eighth, the enforcement of these 
two points of ecclesiastical discipline was 
entirely in the hands of the ecclesiastical 
superiors : They were enforced by the 
canons, and by ecclesiastical censures and 
penalties ; and the temporal laws and the 
temporal courts had nothing to do with 
either. My Lords, I mention this, because 
upon the second reading, a noble duke, 
whom I do not now see in his place, op- 
posing the principle of the bill, said that 
it went to take the clergy in these points 
out of the hands of judges and juries, and 
to put them entirely under the bishops. 
My Lords, if it were so, this would only 
be a restoration of things to the old foot- 



380 



ing ; for judges and juries had no concern 
with these matters before the statute of 
Henry the Eighth. But, my Lords, I 
have no wish that the clergy should be 
taken out of the hands of judges and 
juries : I think, that whoever looks to the 
state of the church, with respect to the re- 
sidence of the clergy, will find that it has 
been much improved since the secular au- 
thority has been impowered to interpose in 
it; and that the statute of Henry the Eighth, 
with all its vices on its back, has been upon 
the whole productive of more good than 
harm ; and if a motion were made to re- 
peal that statute, without putting something 
more equitable and at the same time more 
efficient in its stead, I would oppose it : So 
little am I inclined to take the clergy out 
of the hands of judges and juries. But, 
my Lords, this bill goes to no such effect ; 
it only remedies the iniquity of the bill of 



881 



Henry the Eighth with respect to the pe- 
nalties of non-residence, and the intolerable 
rigour of it in the restrictions upon taking 
in ferm. The statute of Henry the Eighth 
punished non-residence by pecuniary pe- 
nalties ; which were the same, without any 
discrimination, whatever the means might 
be of the delinquent to sustain them : And 
it was therefore unjust ; for it is very evi- 
dent, that a penalty of 50/. is a much 
heavier penalty upon a clergyman whose 
whole income perhaps is not more than 
30/. per annum, than upon another whose 
income may be 500/. And though, in the 
present state of the church, many allowable 
causes of non-residence exist, it gave no 
discretion to judge or jury to mitigate the 
penalty : Nor indeed can such discretion 
be placed with them, according to the mode 
of recovering the penalty which that sta- 
tute prescribes. Now the present bill re- 



382 



medies this iniquity of the old bill, by esta- 
blishing a scale of penalty justly propor- 
tioned to the degree of the delinquency 
and the means of the delinquent ; and it 
gives a discretional power to the bishops, of 
dispensing with residence, and relieving 
from the penalties of the statute, in cases 
in which non-residence ought to be in- 
dulged. 

" My Lords, the present bill, like the 
original statute of Henry the Eighth, being 
intended to enforce residence in all cases 
in which there is no reasonable cause of 
exemption, though it places the clergy un- 
der the coercion of the secular courts, 
withdraws them not from the authority of 
the bishops : On the contrary, it is a far- 
ther object of this bill to strengthen the 
ecclesiastical authority with regard to re- 
sidence. My Lords, in theory the ecclesi- 
astical authority in this point is complete : 



383 



The power of the bishop goes even to 
deprive a contumacious non-resident of his 
benefice. Nevertheless, the exercise of 
this power is so difficult, as to render the 
power itself almost useless. It is exercised 
only in the bishops' courts ; where the pro- 
cess is so tedious, and may run to such an 
expense, that few bishops are willing, or in- 
deed able, if they have many opulent non- 
residents to deal with, to engage in it. This 
bill therefore wisely puts the exercise of 
this power into the bishop's own hands, 
without any interference of his court. And, 
my Lords, the length and expensiveness of 
the proceedings in our courts are not the 
only considerations which make it expe- 
dient that the power should be placed in 
ourselves personally. My Lords, in the 
courts of the Archbishop, of the Bishops 
of London, Winchester, Rochester, and all 
the dioceses which have their courts here in 



384 



town, justice, I am persuaded, is as regu- 
larly administered as in any of his Majes- 
ty's courts in Westminster Hall : But, my 
Lords, in the provincial courts, I fear the 
case is not quite the same, especially in mat- 
ters in which clergymen are interested ; be- 
cause the judges of those provincial courts 
are themselves clergymen. My Lords, when 
I was Bishop of St David's, I gave one of 
the best livings in the patronage of that 
see, a rectory in Cardiganshire with a good 
house upon it, to a clergyman, under the 
most explicit and solemn promises of resi- 
dence. When he was in possession of the 
living, he represented to me, that he had a 
curacy in Glamorganshire (which indeed I 
knew to be the case) ; and he hoped I would 
not so insist upon his promise, but that I 
would give him some time to detach him- 
self from his engagements there. The re- 
quest seemed reasonable ; and I told him I 



385 



would give him half a year. The half year 
passed away; and my clerk was still upon 
his curacy in Glamorganshire, and seemed to 
have made no preparations for fixing himself 
upon his rectory. I began to suspect that 
he meant to elude his promise. Another 
half year was consumed in remonstrances on 
my part, and shuffling excuses on his ; and 
when I was preparing to come to town for 
the winter season, I sent for him, and after 
some warm expostulations with him, I said, 
to him " Sir, take notice, that if I do not 
find you in residence upon your living 
when I return into the country next sum- 
mer, I shall take measures that may be 
very disagreeable to you." Upon my re- 
turn to my diocese the ensuing summer, I 
found my clerk was not yet in residence ; 
and I caused a process to be instituted 
against him, in order to his deprivation, 
in my consistory court. He was up to the 

2b 



386 



business : He took advantage of all the 
causes of delay which the nature of the pro- 
ceedings admit j and after a whole twelve- 
month's litigation and some expense incur- 
red, this unprincipled clergyman, through 
the connivance of my own court, slipped 
through my fingers ; the judge of my court 
being a clergyman, my Lords — a non-resi- 
dent clergyman. My Lords, this instance 
shows the expediency of placing the offence 
of non-residence under the coercion of the 
bishop himself in a summary way ; as is 
wisely proposed to be done by this bill. 

" My Lords, another part of the bill goes 
to release the immoderate rigour of the sta- 
tute of Henry the Eighth in the prohibi- 
tion upon the clergy of taking in ferm. 
The whole principle of the bill therefore 
consists of three parts : It goes to do 
away the injustice of the statute of Henry 
the Eighth in the part relating to the re- 



387 



sidence of the clergy, at the same time that 
it enhances the penalties upon culpable 
non-residence ; it goes to invigorate the 
episcopal authority ; and to give relief in 
the matter of taking in ferm. 

" My Lords, the restraints of the statute 
of Henry the Eighth in that matter are 
most unquestionably extravagant and in- 
tolerable. Nevertheless, it is a matter of 
the very first importance to abstract the 
clergyman from those occupations which 
would degrade his character in the eye of 
the laity : It is certainly the spirit of all 
the ancient constitutions, that a clergyman 
should be a clergyman, and nothing else. 
My Lords, far be it from me to join my 
voice to the despicable cant of Puritanism ; 
as if it were the duty of a clergyman to 
withdraw himself entirely from the com- 
merce and society of the world, and that 
every moment of his time is sinfully em- 



388 



ployed which is not given up to meditation 
and prayer, and studies strictly theological. 
My Lords, there is no branch of learning 
that misbecomes a clergyman : He that 
would understand the Bible, in such a man- 
ner as he ought to understand it who is to 
expound it, should be deeply skilled, as the 
writer of a great part of it was, in " all the 
learning of the Egyptians." I have not scru- 
pled to tell the clergy, ex cathedra^ that a 
clergyman's time is not always mispent 
when he is studying the proportions of ar- 
chitecture and the divisions of the mono- 
chord : For I assert, in contempt and de- 
fiance of all the whining cant of Puritans, 
that there is no branch of abstruse science 
or polite literature which may not be use- 
ful, which may not be even necessary, for 
the illustration of some part or another of 
the book which it is our duty to expound. 
And as to intercourse with the world, I 



389 



hold that none can be qualified to instruct 
the world without it : He who is to teach 
men their duty practically, must know hu- 
man nature generally, and the particular 
manners of his country and his times. But, 
my Lords, the clergy should be kept apart 
from those occupations which would de- 
grade them from the rank which they 
ought to hold in society, and mix them in 
familiar habits with the inferior orders — 
from every thing indeed which would give 
them a lay character. My Lords, I know 
that it becomes me to speak tenderly of 
farming, the fondled bantling of the pre- 
sent times. Agriculture is an occupation 
for the gods : Can the character of a coun- 
try curate be degraded by his addicting 
himself to those pursuits which procured 
divine honours to Ceres and Triptolemus ? 
— But, my Lords, I beseech you to remem^ 
ber that this godlike occupation of farming 



890 



will not be taken up by the inferior clergy, 
if they are allowed to engage in it, in the 
manner in which some of your Lordships 
apply to it, for your own amusement, for the 
public benefit, and to your own great loss; 
— they will apply to it as a business, and 
for gain : The country curate, if he turns 
farmer, will take part in the labours of hus- 
bandry ; he will wield the sithe and the 
sickle ; he will fodder the kine, and help 
to throw out the dung upon his land ; and 
thus he will be associated with the labour- 
ing peasantry : Even the business of the 
markets, which he will attend to show his 
own samples and make his own bargains, 
will mix him too much in familiar habits 
with the lower farmers; and thus the whole 
dignity and sanctity of his character will be 
obliterated. The restrictions of the old 
statute are certainly rigorous in the ex- 
treme, m& require relaxation : But when 



391 



we come to the consideration of these 
clauses, I beseech your Lordships to take 
care that the relaxation is not carried be- 
yond the proper limit, — that the new bill 
does not exceed in indulgence as much as 
the old one in severity. I do not say posi- 
tively that this is the case. It is a very 
difficult subject, and I have not made up 
my mind ; but it is a matter to be well 
looked to. And this is all that I shall at 
present say upon that part of the bill. 

" With respect to the clause which enacts 
the penalties of non-residence, I have al- 
ready expressed my approbation of it. I 
fear indeed that the time of allowed non- 
residence is longer than it ought to be : I 
think, with a little ingenuity, the three 
months will often be turned into six. 

" My Lords, this penal clause is followed 
by another, containing a very long list of 
cases of exemption — of absolute exemp- 



392 



tion, without any interposition of that dis- 
cretional power of exemption which is 
given to the bishops in a subsequent part 
of the bill. Some such exemptions were 
given by the old bill ; and it is certainly 
proper that they should stand : But many 
cases are specified, which are either already 
exempted by the general reservation of the 
exemptions of the old bill, — and then the 
enumeration of them nominatim only serves 
to swell the list of exemptions to the public 
eye, and to give the country a suspicion 
that we are inventing all sorts of loopholes 
for. the clergy to creep out at ; or, if they 
are not so exempted, they are in my 
judgment not entitled to this absolute ex- 
emption : And many others are added, 
which are certainly improper. I shall point 
out these when we come to the considera- 
tion of this clause in the committee : I shall 
mention only one at present, as an example. 



393 



My Lords, the situation of a minor canon 
in any cathedral or collegiate church is 
made one of the grounds of absohite ex- 
emption from the penalties of non-resi- 
dence upon a benefice. It is true, the 
exemption is only given for the time during 
which the statutes of the cathedral or col- 
legiate church require the minor canon's 
attendance, and during which he shall ac- 
cordingly be in attendance and performing 
his duty there : But, my Lords, I am in- 
formed, that the statutes of the Church of 
St Paul (and the case may be the same in 
some other cathedrals, though not in all) 
require the attendance of every minor ca- 
non for the whole year ; and yet very con- 
siderable livings often fall to the share of 
these minor canons. Now, my Lords, if 
a minor canon of St Paul's were to obtain 
a living of twelve or thirteen hundred 
pounds a year in the diocese of London, 



394 

and the Bishop were to say to him that he 
ought to be resident upon his great living, 
though it should oblige him to relinquish 
his situation in the Church of St Paul's and 
to give up the petty emolument of his office 
there,— is it fit that this minor canon should 
have it to say to the Bishop of London 
^ No, my Lord : Here I am, a minor canon 
in your Lordship's cathedral : I cling to my 
stall ; and, without your Lordship's permis- 
sion to be absent from my living, I defy 
the penal statute." My Lords, in this si- 
tuation is the Bishop of London placed by 
this clause with respect to a minor canon 
of his own cathedral. 

" My Lords, this clause is followed by 
another, which gives the bishop of every 
diocese a discretional power of granting a 
licence of non-residence for a certain time 
in certain enumerated cases, but in certain 
enumerated cases only. Then follows the 



395 



clause of enumeration ; which is very full : 
I mean not to say that it is too full ; — per- 
haps it may not be complete ; — enumera- 
tion seldom is complete : But certainly 
this is not too full ; it contains no case 
which may not be a fair ground of exemp- 
tion. But, my Lords, I do strongly ob- 
ject to this principle of enumeration. I 
apprehend, that the enumeration will have 
the effect of an advertisement to the clergy 
of all the pretences upon which they may 
come to the bishop and tease him for a 
licence. My Lords, I will illustrate this 
by an example. One of the cases in which 
a licence of non-residence may be granted 
is illness or infirmity of body of the incum- 
bent himself, his wife or child ; — certainly 
a most reasonable case. If his own health 
require the assistance of the air or water 
of some particular place, it would be very 
hard that he should not be allowed to re- 



396 



move to that place for a time ; and if the 
ill health of wife or child require such as- 
sistance, it would be cruel not to give the 
husband or father liberty of accompanying 
them. My Lords, highly as I think of the 
duty of residence, it never should have di- 
vided me from a sick wife or a sick child ; 
and a restraint to which I would not sub- 
mit myself, I would not have imposed on 
others. But see, my Lords, what may be 
the consequence of advertising this as one 
of the cases entitled to indulgence ; see 
what pretences may be set up on the ground 
of this advertisement. I suppose a cler- 
gyman in affluent circumstances, with a 
sprightly wife and child, has long been re- 
sident on a country living : The lady is 
grown perfectly sick of this relegation from 
elegant society in a dull sequestered situa- 
tion : She says to her husband " My dear, 
we have been a long time in this dismal 



397 

place ; surely you might get a licence of* 
non-residence for some time : I am dread- 
fully nervous, you know ; you are overload- 
ed with bile ; and the poor child is rickety : 
Bath would set us all up : Ask the Bishop 
for a licence." The husband, perhaps, is a 
little bashful : He has taken, to be sure, a 
great deal of rhubarb ; the lady never goes 
through the day without ether ; and the 
child is perpetually swallowing something 
to strengthen its limbs : But yet he is con- 
scious that there is no such degree of dis- 
ease among them as would justify him in a 
request to be non-resident, especially as 
his situation is a very healthy one ; he is 
unwilling therefore to make the application. 
" Pho W says the lady ; " you are so conscien- 
tious ! Leave it to me to manage : I will 
speak to the Bishop's lady ; she is as ner- 
vous as I am, and will take my part from 
fellow-feeling : I warrant you we shall pre- 



398 



vail upon the Bishop, who is himself a good- 
natured man, if you will but get over your 
foolish scruples, and sign the petition." 
The man is prevailed upon ; the petition 
is signed : The apothecary of the village 
can, with a very safe conscience, make af- 
fidavit of the ill health of the family ; know- 
ing that he has supplied them with medi- 
cines in a quantity sufficient to make them 
all sick if they were not so beforehand : The 
bishop is besieged with the solicitations of 
the lady and all her friends, among whom 
his own lady is one of the warmest ; and 
he must muster up a great deal of resolu- 
tion to stand the siege. And all this in- 
convenience arises from what I call the 
advertisement; for, without that, the in- 
dulgence might be granted to real ill 
health ; but these solicitations upon the 
pretence of ill health would not have been 
invited. 



399 



w My Lords, I would propose that the 
bishop should have this power of licensing, 
without any enumeration of cases, in every 
case which in his judgment should be en- 
titled to the indulgence, 

" But, my Lords, much more than to the 
clause itself, I object to the proviso annex- 
ed to it. It is provided, my Lords, that 
if, in any of the enumerated cases, the 
bishop shall refuse to grant a licence to 
the clergyman petitioning for it, the clergy- 
man may appeal to the archbishop of the 
province ; who is impowered to grant the 
licence which the bishop (who probably is 
better acquainted with the real merits of a 
case in his own diocese than the metropo- 
litan can be) has thought proper to refuse. 
An appeal, my Lords ! from what ? The 
licence of non-residence is no matter of 
right ; it is a favour. My Lords, I under- 
stand the propriety of an appeal from aju-r 



400 



dicial sentence, where rights are in ques- 
tion ; but I do not understand the pro- 
priety of an appeal when a favour only is de- 
nied. The clergyman is to go to the arch- 
bishop, and say " My bishop has refused 
me a favour which I asked: Make him grant 
it." My Lords, the appeal given in this 
case to the archbishop, I assert to be un- 
constitutional in the highest degree : It in- 
vests the archbishop with the ordinary go- 
vernment of every diocese in his province, 
in matters merely spiritual ; in which he has 
no right to interfere beyond the limits of 
his own proper diocese. In any other 
diocese 5 the archbishop's authority is mere- 
ly visitatorial ; he possesses not an atom 
of ordinary jurisdiction ; and ought not to 
be introduced to it. My Lords, I desire 
to know, in what instance the archbishop 
is authorized to interfere in the administra- 
tion of any other diocese than his own, in 



401 



spirituals. If I refuse to ordain a candi- 
date for holy orders, he has no remedy by 
appeal to the archbishop. It is true, it is 
my duty, in such a case, to acquaint the 
archbishop with my refusal of the candi- 
date, and my reason for refusing him ; and 
to transmit to the archbishop all the testi- 
monials of character and papers of form 
that were produced to me : Not that the 
archbishop has any power to revise what 
I have done ; but for this purpose, — that 
the archbishop may send a circular letter 
to all the other bishops of the province, 
informing them that such a person has 
been refused by such a bishop, and re- 
questing that no one of them would ordain 
him without consulting himself the arch- 
bishop or the bishop who first refused. 
The very terms in which these circular 
letters are conceived imply the indepen- 
dence of the bishops in the matter; for 

2 c 



402 



the archbishop neither commands me to 
ordain nor forbids any other to ordain, 
but advises every other not to proceed 
to ordination without a consultation. My 
Lords, if a clergyman comes to me with 
a presentation to a living in my diocese, 
and I refuse him institution, he has no 
appeal to the archbishop. The patron has 
his writ of quare impedit in the secular 
courts, — and very properly : The clerk has 
no appeal to the archbishop, because insti- 
tution is a branch of the voluntary jurisdic- 
tion in spirituals in which the archbishop 
has no share ; but the patron has his re- 
medy in the King's courts, because his 
temporal rights are affected. In short, my 
Lords, there is no instance in which the 
archbishop can meddle with the voluntary 
jurisdiction. In the contentious jurisdic- 
tion in causes between parties agitated in 
the bishop's court, an appeal certainly lies 



403 



to the archbishop ; and in all such cases, 
an ulterior appeal lies to the King in Chan- 
cery, — and very properly ; because all this 
jurisdiction arises out of the civil establish- 
ment, and antecedent to establishments 
was not inherent in the spiritual society as 
such : But in the voluntary jurisdiction- — 
in matters purely spiritual, there is no au- 
thority in any diocese beyond the bishop's ; 
and the attempt to introduce a superior 
authority, in this instance, is a most out- 
rageous violation of the ecclesiastical con- 
stitution, — not merely the particular con- 
stitution of the church of this kingdom, 
but the constitution of the church catholic, 
by which every bishop in his own diocese 
is supreme. And, my Lords, this is a 
matter of no light consideration. The at- 
tempted innovation is most dangerous ; 
for ecclesiastical history, as your Lordships 
well know, bears me out in the assertion 



404 



which I now make, that the whole super- 
structure of the Papal tyranny arose out of 
encroachments and usurpations, small as 
they seemed in their beginnings, of metro- 
politans and patriarchs, upon the inde- 
pendent authority of bishops. 

" My Lords, I am aware that upon this 
point some of my reverend brethren have 
an opinion different from mine. I know 
that one very learned prelate, whose deep 
erudition and great talents are far above 
any praise of mine, to whom I bear the 
greatest personal regard, and whose opi- 
nions are entitled to your Lordships' gravest 
consideration, — I know, or have reason at 
least to believe, that this reverend prelate 
will tell your Lordships, that an archbishop, 
in his opinion, stands related to the bishops 
of his province just as a bishop stands re- 
lated to his parish-priests ; and that the 
bishop is bound by his oath of canonical 



405 



obedience to the archbishop, just as the 
parish-priest is bound by his oath of canon- 
ical obedience to the bishop. My Lords, 
if the analogy were perfect, — which in my 
judgment it is not, — but if it were per- 
fect, it would make for my opinion rather 
than for his. My Lords, the bishop, 
when once he has instituted a rector or 
vicar, or licensed a perpetual curate to a 
parish-church, has nothing more to do with 
the cure of souls in that parish : He com- 
mits that cure to the priest, and it is en- 
tirely gone from himself ; and he has no 
right to interfere with it, otherwise than by 
his visitatorial authority, to see that the 
priest in the exercise of it conforms to the 
laws of the church and the realm. If the 
priest does any thing contrary to either, 
the bishop, as visitor, has a right to admo- 
nish him ; and if admonition is ineffectual, 
to punish him by ecclesiastical censures 



406 



and penalties : But no otherwise can he in- 
terfere in the cure of souls with which he 
has invested the priest. To him he com- 
mits the care and government of the souls 
of the parishioners ; saving, indeed, to him- 
self and his successors his episcopal rights. 
Now, what are the episcopal rights which 
are so reserved ? — I say, the whole of the 
visitatorial power ; and besides, the right 
of making use of the church for the per- 
formance of some rites which a bishop only 
can perform ; but these make no part of 
the parochial cure of souls. The bishop 
has a right to go to the parish-church when 
he thinks proper, to confirm the parishion- 
ers, and persons of other parishes, whom 
he may think proper to call to that church 
to receive confirmation : He has a right 
to interfere in some matters without ex- 
pressly holding a visitation : If the priest 
takes upon him to repel any person from 



407 



the holy communion, without consulting 
the bishop upon the case, — if he takes upon 
him to reconcile a convert from the church 
of Rome, and to receive his public recanta- 
tion, without the permission of the bishop, 
— if he introduces a curate to take a share 
with him in the cure of souls, without the 
bishop's licence,— these are offences which 
the bishop may correct : But these are ex- 
traordinary cases ; making no part of the 
general parochial cure of souls, — which 
the bishop is to control and direct so that 
every thing may be done in order, but he 
cannot take the exercise of it upon himself: 
And just so, I say, an archbishop has a vi- 
sitatorial authority pver the bishops of his 
province, but no right to interfere with 
them in the exercise of the voluntary ju- 
risdiction over their clergy. And I appre- 
hend that the mistake arises from con- 
founding the voluntary and the contentious 



408 



jurisdiction. In the contentious jurisdic- 
tion which is exercised in the bishop's 
court, in causes between party and party, an 
appeal is always open to the archbishop's 
court, and an ulterior appeal to the King 
in Chancery ; and this extends to the bi- 
shop's government of his clergy, so far as 
it is exercised in his court. If a clergyman, 
upon any offence committed, be libelled in 
the bishop's court, pro salute animce, an 
appeal lies from the sentence ; because the 
whole power of the court arises out of the 
civil establishment of the church, and the 
very court itself is a creature of the secular 
authority. But the case is quite otherwise 
with respect to that voluntary jurisdiction 
which is exercised by the bishop personally 
without his court ; which is inherent in the 
episcopal office and character, by the con- 
stitution of the church catholic, antecedent 
to all alliances between church and state. 



409 



" With respect to the oath, the bishop is 
certainly bound by it to the archbishop as 
much as the priest to the bishop ; as much, 
I say, my Lords, but not more. And what 
is the obedience to which the oath binds 
either? — Not to an indefinite, unlimited, 
but to canonical obedience, — to no obe- 
dience beyond canonical. And I say, that 
a submission to the archbishop, in the exer- 
cise of my voluntary jurisdiction in my 
own diocese, is no part of the obedience 
which I owe the archbishop by virtue of my 
oath. 

" But, my Lords, I must observe, that 
the relation between the archbishop and, 
bishop, and the relation between bishop 
and parish-priest, are materially different. 
The parish-priest derives his whole power 
of cure of souls from the bishop : The bi- 
shop confers it on him by institution, or, 
in the case of a perpetual curate, by li- 



410 



cence ; but in either case it comes from 
the bishop solely. But a bishop owes not 
a particle of his diocesan authority to the 
archbishop: The archbishop neither con- 
fers nor can he withhold it, although he 
has a limited control over it. In Eng- 
land, the diocesan authority is conferred by 
the election of the clergy of the cathedral 
church : It is that election which makes 
the bishop of the diocese. It is true, that 
election is so controlled and directed by 
the King, as supreme head of the national 
church, that it seems to be little more 
than a mere form ; for when the clergy of 
the cathedral are impowered to proceed to 
election, by the conge d'elire, their choice 
is directed to^ particular person recom- 
mended by the King. In effect, therefore, 
it is from the King that the bishop receives 
his diocesan authority ; the election of the 
clergy of the cathedral being only the fonipi 



411 



by which the King gives it : But the arch- 
bishop has no share in the giving of it. It 
is true, the election is followed by a pro- 
ceeding in the archbishop's court, which 
is called the confirmation of the bishop 
elect : But this is not a proceeding by 
w 7 hich the archbishop confers the diocesan 
authority ; it is merely a revision of the 
proceedings in the business of the election, 
to see that all has been done in due form 
and order, without any such irregularity as 
would render the election ab initio a nul- 
lity. Inquiry is also made into the cha- 
racter of the bishop elect ; to see that he is 
a person in public reputation, and, in the 
tenor of his life, fit to be advanced to so 
high a station in the church. And when it 
is found that all has been regularly done, 
and that the life and character of the bishop 
elect are unimpeachable, the judge of the 
archbishop's court pronounces that he is 



412 



duly elected, — that is, duly invested with 
the diocesan authority. But that sentence 
does not invest him ; it declares only that 
he is invested. 

" In another part of the United Kingdom 
(I speak in the presence of two metropoli- 
tans of that part of the kingdom, who will 
correct me if I am wrong in what I am 
going to assert), the bishop is invested with 
his diocesan authority immediately by the 
King's letter patent, without any previous 
election of the clergy of the cathedral, or 
any subsequent confirmation of the arch- 
bishop. 

" In both parts of the kingdom, there- 
fore, the bishop derives the whole of his 
diocesan authority — in the one both in form 
and effect, in the other in effect though 
not in form — solely from the King ; not an 
atom of it from the archbishop. Then 
for our temporalities, and all our secular 



413 



authorities and prerogatives, in both parts 
of the kingdom, we hold them solely of 
the Crown, 

" Then, my Lords, what part of our 
diocesan authority do we derive from the 
archbishop ? — Certainly not an atom of it. 
We derive only from him the power of 
order ; which is given by consecration, and 
can be given in no other way ; no secular 
power can give it. But the power of order 
is the spiritual capacity of exercising those 
sacred functions which none without that 
power can perform. And this power of 
order is always described by the canonists 
as a distinct thing from the diocesan au- 
thority : And it is distinct, and indeed in 
its nature is a higher thing : Christ first 
gave it to the apostles ; the apostles con- 
veyed it to others ; and those only who have 
derived it from the apostles in perpetual 
succession have power still to convey it 



414 

But it is so distinct from diocesan author 
rity, that the power of order may be pos- 
sessed (and in some instances is possessed) 
without a particle of diocesan authority; 
and diocesan authority might be conferred 
on a person not having the power of order ; 
though such a person, without the power 
of order, could not perform any one of the 
sacred functions of a bishop. The bishop, 
therefore, — which is the great point that I 
am anxious to prove, — derives no part of 
his diocesan authority from the archbishop. 
The contentious jurisdiction in every dio- 
cese arises out of the civil establishment, 
and is properly subject to appeal : But the 
bishop of every diocese has a power, which 
is called the voluntary jurisdiction, which 
is of higher origin and earlier date than 
any civil establishment ; which the arch- 
bishop, beyond the limits of his own pro- 
per diocese, has no right to take into his 



415 



own hands ; except in extraordinary cases, 
namely, vacancy of a see, when it de- 
volves to him for the time, as guardian of 
the spiritualities ; and when, for the pur- 
pose of visiting his province, he inhibits 
the bishops for a short time. And I con- 
tend, that the power of appeal proposed to 
be given by this bill would mix the arch- 
bishop, in the ordinary jurisdiction of every 
diocese in his province, in the voluntary 
branch, in a manner in which he ought not 
to mix in it ; and would be a violent in- 
fringement of the independence of the bi- 
shops. 

" But, my Lords, dismissing this ground 
of objection, I might argue against this ap- 
peal simply from the impolicy of it ; and 
perhaps some of your Lordships may allow 
more weight to this argument than to the 
other. My Lords, I say, that this appeal 



416 



lays the ground of much ill-humour be- 
tween the bishops and their clergy, and the 
archbishops and the bishops ; and is likely 
either to defeat the purposes of the bill, or 
will be nugatory. My Lords, if the arch- 
bishop, in the exercise of the power given to 
him, should pin his faith upon the bishop 
(which is the course most likely to be 
taken), and say " I will not grant what the 
bishop has refused ; I will confirm his re- 
fusals," then the appeal is nugatory. If, 
on the other hand, the archbishop should 
be very alert in the exercise of this new 
unconstitutional authority with which the 
bill improperly invests him, I think any 
bishop that finds himself interfered with 
will be apt to say to his clergy " I will 
have nothing more to do with this busi- 
ness : I will license none of you : Go to 
the archbishop, and he may license you all, 



417 



if it so please him y] and then the purpose 
of the bill will be pretty much defeated. 

" But noble lords may say " What then 
is your plan ? W ould you give every bi- 
shop a power within his diocese of licen- 
sing at his pleasure, without any check up- 
on him in the exercise of that large dis- 
cretion ? "—My Lords, rriy plan would be 
this : 1 would propose to your Lordships, 
that every bishop should be impowered to 
grant licences within his own diocese, in 
every case which should seem in his judg- 
ment entitled to the indulgence : But then 
he should be required to set forth in every 
licence the cause of granting it ; and, be- 
sides, he should be obliged to transmit to 
the archbishop, on or before a day to be 
fixed by the act in every year, a report of 
all the licences granted by him in the year 
preceding ; specifying not only the names 
of the clergy, and the names of the bene- 
2 D 



fices in respect of which they shall have 
been granted, but the time for which each 
has been granted, and the causes of grant- 
ing : And this report, with the addition 
of his own proper diocese, the archbishop 
should be required to transmit to the 
King in Chancery. And, my Lords, this, 
I maintain, would be a severer check upon 
the bishops, in the exercise of their discre- 
tional power of dispensation, than any the 
bill imposes in its present shape ; because 
it makes the acts of the bishop public and 
notorious. My Lords, what is the security 
for the proper conduct of any public men 
in the exercise of any discretional powers 
with which they may be invested ? What 
is the security for a judge's just exercise of 
his discretional powers ? — My Lords, the 
security is this, and nothing else, — that the 
judge is a public man, in a great conspicu- 
ous station, and that nothing that he does 



419 



is done in a corner: My Lords, this is 
the security you have for the discretion of 
a judge. The very same you have for the 
discretion of a bishop : A bishop is a per- 
son holding a conspicuous situation in the 
country, high in rank, and invested with 
great authority ; and the jealous eye of the 
public is upon him and upon all his ac- 
tions. 

" But, my Lords, it may be said, that 
cases may occur when the cause of granting 
cannot with propriety be set forth in the 
licence, — cases in which it may be fit that 
a licence should be granted, and yet the 
cause of granting may be unfit to be told. 
A clergyman may be disqualified for duty; 
or even his absence may be made a mat- 
ter of necessity, by reason of some disorder 
which it would be cruel to divulge. Other 
cases may occur, hardly fit to be mentioned 
here. But for these cases the bill has in 



420 



my judgment very wisely and properly pro- 
vided. Here I consent that the archbishop 
should be called in, — not byway of appeal; 
but, as this bill calls him in, to confirm 
any licence granted by the bishop when 
the cause of granting cannot be set forth; 
without which confirmation, such licence 
should be void, 

" My Lords, in that part of the bill 
which gives the bishops a summary exer- 
cise of the ecclesiastical authority, I shall 
request your Lordships to attend carefully 
to the structure of the clauses, to see that 
they are so drawn as really to go to the ef- 
fect intended. And this is all I shall say 
at present upon that part of the bill. 

" The case of the cathedral clergy, which 
seems not sufficiently provided for, will re- 
quire your particular attention. 

" I have nothing more to say, till the 
House shall be in committee." 



UPON THE BILL TO REGULATE THE AGES OF 
PERSONS TO BE ADMITTED INTO HOLY OR- 
DERS ; 

April 13, 1804. 



On Friday the 13th April 1804, the House, 
agreeably to the order of the day, having 
resolved itself into a committee of the 
whole House upon the bill respecting the 
ages of persons to be admitted into holy 
orders, the business proceeded without 
any observation, till the clause was read 
which enacts, that in case any person^ shall, 
from and after the passing of this act, be 
admitted a deacon before he has attained 
the age of three-and-twenty years com- 
plete, or a priest before he has attained 
the age of four-and-twenty years complete, 



422 



such admission shall be merely void in law, 
as if it never had been made ; and the per- 
son so admitted shall be incapable of hold- 
ing and disabled from taking any eccle- 
siastical promotion or preferment whatso- 
ever in virtue of such his admission. 

Upon this, the Bishop of St Asapk rose, 
and observed, that this clause contained the 
only part of the bill upon which any doubt 
or difficulty could arise. As to the inca- 
pacity of holding and taking ecclesiastical 
preferment, there was nothing new in that : 
It attached upon priests, at least, ordained 
before the canonical and legal age of twen- 
ty-four years, by former statutes. But it 
was not equally clear that any existing sta- 
tute went the length of annulling the or- 
dination itself ; which would be the effect 
of the words " Such admission shall be 
merely void in law, as if it never had been 
made and it might be doubted, though 



423 



lie himself, upon a full consideration of the 
subject, had no doubt, whether this was 
consistent with the great principle of the in- 
delebility of the sacred character ; " a prin- 
ciple, my Lords, which I for one" said the 
Bishop " never will abandon." My Lords, 
upon a late occasion, when this question 
of the indelebility of the sacred charac- 
ter came to be much agitated in this 
House, it was argued (learnedly and sound- 
ly, in my judgment) by a noble and learn- 
ed lord who now sits near me, that the pro- 
cess against criminal clergymen in our 
courts, which is called degradation, which 
is commonly supposed to be a deposition 
of a clergyman from his order, goes how- 
ever no farther than to a deprivation of a 
clergyman who incurs that sentence, of all 
the secular emoluments, privileges, and im- 
munities of his order, and to a suspension 
of his legal exercise of the functions of the 



424 



ministry ; but does not extinguish the sa- 
cred character itself. This is more than 
the sentence of any earthly tribunal can 
operate ; comprehending under the general 
name of earthly tribunal, the tribunal of 
the church itself on earth. Mv Lords, 1 
hold with the noble and learned lord in 
that opinion. And I go farther : I main- 
tain, that the limit which that opinion as- 
signs to the effect of degradation circum- 
scribes in this case even the omnipotence 
of Parliament itself. Boldly I assert, that 
to extinguish the sacred character, is more 
than any act of the Legislature can effect. 
What the secular authority gave, the secu- 
lar authority may take away : It may take 
away all the property, all the rights and 
privileges, which the clergy hold by virtue 
of the civil establishment of the church ; 
for these things it gave : But the spiritual 
capacity itself, conferred by ordination, this 



425 



no earthly power gave, and no earthly power 
is competent to the abrogation of it : No 
act of Parliament can take away the sacer- 
dotal character, once ritely, canonically, and 
validly conferred. 

" But, my Lords, there may be, in cer- 
tain cases, a radical nullity in the act of or- 
dination itself, — such an irregularity in the 
performance of it, or such incapacity in the 
recipient, as may render the act from the 
beginning null and void. My Lords, the 
canons of the primitive church mention 
many such incapacities. If any person be- 
fore his ordination had been twice married, 
or had contracted marriage with a widow, 
or with a woman divorced, or with a slave, 
or with an actress, — the ordination was null : 
Notwithstanding that the outward ceremo- 
ny of ordination had passed upon him, no 
character was allowed to be conveved : he 
remained a mere layman. There was no- 



426 



thing which, in ancient times, the church 
was so anxious to prevent and disallow as 
an admission to holy orders at too early an 
age. By the Neocsesarean canons, by the 
decrees of Siricius, by the canons of the 
African Code, and those of the Trullan Sy- 
nod, it appears that the earliest age allowed 
in ancient times, either in the Greek or in 
the Latin church, was twenty-five for the 
order of deacons, and thirtv for that of 
priests. 

" Now, my Lords, though I never will 
allow to Parliament an authority to un- 
make a well-made priest or deacon — an 
authority to extinguish the spiritual cha- 
racter once validly conferred, yet if there 
has been any such irregularity in the colla- 
tion of the character as to make the act 
from the very beginning null, it is cer- 
tainly competent to an act of Parliament to 
declare that original nullity. The case is 



427 



somewhat analogous to that of marriage. 
No court in this country has authority to 
dissolve the marriage-contract between par- 
ties who w T ere in all respects capable of the 
contract at the time when it was made : 
But if impediments existed at the time of 
marriage, such as to render the parties in- 
capable, and the contract by consequence 
originally null, of such original nullity the 
ecclesiastical court has cognizance, and may 
declare it ; and, by that judgment, separate 
parties illegally united. So, in the case of 
ordination, I maintain that even an act of 
Parliament cannot abrogate what was at 
first well done : But, on the other hand, I 
equally maintain, that it may declare and 
point out an original nullity in the act. 
My Lords, it is understood that it is neces- 
3ary to the validity of any religious ordi r 
nance, conferring any special grace or spi- 
ritual capacity, that the intention of the 



428 



person who administers should go with the 
external act. My Lords, it cannot be sup- 
posed that any bishop, in conferring orders, 
means to do a thing disallowed by the ca- 
nons of the church. If he lays his hands 
on the head of a young man under the ca- 
nonical age, and says " Receive the Holy 
Ghost for the office and work of a priest," 
the bishop must be in error, deceived with 
respect to the age : Though his hand and 
his lips are employed, his mind is abhor- 
rent from the action : He does not mean 
to ordain a person priest under twenty-four 
years of age : The church has told him in 
her canons, that such a person is incapableof 
the priesthood: Such a person, therefore, 
is not within the intention of the ordainer; 
and is not ordained bv him. The same 
reasoning applies in the case of deacons. 
My Lords, in this view of it, as declaring 
(in affirmance of the canons of the church) 



429 

an original nullity, in particular cases, in 
the act of conferring orders, arising from a 
canonical incapacity in the recipient, not 
as annulling orders ritely and validly con- 
ferred, I approve of the enactment of this 
clause : I think it a wise one." 

The Duke of Norfolk knew, that the 
indelebility of the sacred character was a 
principle in the church of Rome ; but he 
did not know that it was equally a princi- 
ple in the church of England. It was not 
his intention to move any amendment, if 
the bill, as it stood, had the approbation of 
the Reverend Bench. He thought, that 
through the imperfections of registers, and 
defect of evidence of the time of birth, it 
might sometimes happen that the act might 
be unintentionally transgressed ; and that 
for that reason the penal incapacities w r ere 
too severe. His grace thought, that if per- 
sons receiving orders prematurely were to 



430 



be liable to such penalties, the bishop con- 
ferring them ought to be made subject to 
penalties ; and that the Bishop of Sodor 
and Man ought to be included in the bill. 

The Bishop of St Asaph replied, that 
he agreed with the noble duke, that it 
might sometimes happen that the act might 
be unintentionally transgressed : But for 
that verv reason, he was desirous that the 
nullity of the ordination should be declared 
by the bill ; because this opened means of 
relief for persons unintentionally trans- 
gressing, from disabilities which would 
otherwise attach upon them for their whole 
lives. That the noble duke could not 
imagine that any bishop would not be 
liable to penalties who should dare to dis- 
obey the positive enactments of an act of 
Parliament. That the Bishop of Sodor and 
Man, though not particularly named in the 
bill, is included in it i for although he is 



431 



no lord of Parliament, as not holding of 
the Crown, he is an English bishop with- 
in the province of the metropolitical see of 
York. 

The clause was then agreed to unani- 
mously. 



UPON THE BILL RELATING TO THE STIPENDS 
OF LONDON INCUMBENTS; 

July 23, 1804. 

A bill brought into the Upper House for 
making farther provision for the clergy 
within the city of London was moved 
for a third reading on the 19th of July 
1804. 

The Duke of Norfolk, allowing the ob- 
ject of the bill to be desirable, objected to 
the mode in which it was proposed to ef- 
fect that object, as wholly inconsistent with 
the principles upon which the House had 
hitherto legislated in whatever affected the 
rights of private property. He would call 
upon their Lordships to say, whether they 
could in honour and conscience pass the 



433 



bill, except the previous consent of every 
person on whom it would operate as a tax 
had been obtained. The clergy of London, 
from the time of the Reformation to the 
reign of Charles the Second, was maintain- 
ed by a certain poundage upon the rental 
of houses : After the great fire, by a sta- 
tute of Charles the Second, that poundage 
was commuted for a sum certain ; and at 
that proportion it had continued until that 
moment. He would freely admit that the 
salary was by no means adequate to the 
proper maintenance of the clergy; and 
much as he was inclined to concur in any 
measure that should enable them to sup- 
port their due rank, yet he could not bring 
himself to consent to this bill. He moved 
therefore that the third reading should be 
postponed until that day three months. 

The Lord Chancellor (Eldon) was 
not willing that the bill should be read a 

2 E 



434 

third time now, nor postponed for three 
months : He would propose that it be de- 
ferred a few days only; that he might satisfy 
his mind, if possible, that the objects of the 
bill and the rights of private property were 
reconcilable in the mode taken by the bill. 

The third reading was accordingly post- 
poned till the 23d of the month. On the 
day fixed by adjournment, the Bishop of 
St Asaph defended the bill. 



" MY LORDS, 

" The bill upon which we are 
to debate whether it shall be read a third 
time now or on this day three months is en- 
titled " an act for the relief of certain in- 
cumbents of livings in the city of London." 
My Lords, before I go into the bill, I 
must desire your Lordships to remark, that 
these certain incumbents, to whose relief 



435 

this bill applies, are a great majority of the 
beneficed clergy of the city of London, — a 
great majority, my Lords. I repeat and 
insist upon this circumstance, because great 
misrepresentation has gone abroad. It was 
lately asserted in a very respectable assem- 
bly, — and what was asserted in that assem- 
bly has found its way into the public prints, 
— that the incumbents to be relieved by this 
bill are a minority only of the London 
clergy. It has been said, that the parishes 
to which what is called the fire-act applies, 
and to which of consequence this act, which 
is an amendment of the fire-act, applies, 
are in number only forty-eight ; while the 
parishes within the city, not affected by 
the fire-act, nor by this bill, are fifty-one. 
My Lords, this is a most outrageous false- 
hood. The parishes which fall under the 
fire-act and under this bill are not fewer 
than eighty-six ; though the livings, it is 



436 



true, are no more than fifty-one : For after 
the fire of London, it was thought proper 
to rebuild only fifty-one of the eighty-six 
churches destroyed by that calamity, and ? 
by uniting, to reduce sixty-nine of the be- 
nefices to thirty-four; and thus the eigh- 
ty-six parishes made only fifty-one livings. 
Still they are eighty-six parishes. But the 
parishes which escaped the fire and are not 
affected by the fire-act are nineteen, and 
no more. The incumbents, therefore, for 
whose relief this bill is introduced, are a 
very great majority of the London clergy. 

" My Lords, your Lordships have heard 
much, I believe, of the opulence of those 
nineteen livings in which the rights of the 
clergy were not curtailed by the fire-act : 
Your Lordships have heard, that the reve- 
nues of those nineteen livings are immense, 
enormous — far beyond the proportion of 
the wants of any private clergymen — too 



437 

much for churchmen to be permitted to 
^njoy ! My Lords, this is another false- 
hood. One of those livings is said to pro- 
duce 700/. per annum, another 800/. : I 
speak of reputed values, which are gene- 
rally beyond the truth ; but the average of 
the nineteen is no more than 290/. per an- 
num. 

" My Lords, it may seem strange, that 
at this time of day we should have to pro- 
vide for the better maintenance of the 
London clergy ; especially as you will per- 
ceive, by the very preamble of this bill, 
that their maintenance has in former times 
been the object of Parliamentary provision. 
Your Lordships have heard that their ap- 
pointments are very inadequate ; but you 
are perhaps not informed how they came 
to be so poor, nor what claim the London 
clergy have to a better maintenance. \ 
/shall therefore endeavour to state to your 



438 

Lordships what their situation originally 
was, and how they were reduced to their 
present impoverished condition. This will 
throw much light upon the argument I am 
about to hold upon the justice and expe- 
diency of the present bill. 

" The maintenance of the clergy, your 
Lordships know, derives from two principal 
Sources — tithes and oblations. The streets 
of London, my Lords, or of any great town, 
produce no tithes, — certainly no predial 
tithes, nor any mixed: London can produce 
no species of tithes but the personal. Of 
personal tithes we hear much indeed in the 
old canonists, and something we hear of 
them in the statute-book ; yet I am per- 
suaded the claim never was generally en- 
forced, and nowhere less than in the city, 
of London : The oblations therefore have 
been in all times the principal mainte- 
nance of the London clergy. It is true, 



439 



we have acts of Parliament which purport 
to be for regulating the payment of tithes 
in London : But that is only that the word 
is very inaccurately used as a general name 
for the legal dues of the clergy of whatever 
description ; or that tithes, if any there 
were, are meant to be included under the 
general provisions of those acts. The cer- 
tain matter of fact is, that the oblations 
made almost if not altogether the whole 
property of the London clergy. 

" The oblation, your Lordships know, 
was a small payment due of right to the 
minister upon Sundays and other great fes- 
tivals of the church ; regulated in its quan- 
tum by custom and usage, but everywhere 
bearing some proportion to the rent of the 
parishioner who was to pay it. The ear- 
liest authentic information that I find about 
the oblations, in London, is in an ordinance 
of Roger Niger, who was Bishop of Lon- 



440 



don in an early part of the thirteenth centu- 
ry. * Niger requires, that the good citizens 
of London pay to the minister one farthing 
for every ten shillings of rent, " Diebus 
Dominicis, efe solennibus, et festis duplici- 
bus, praesertim apostolorum quorum vigi- 
liae jejunantur." f And these payments Bi- 
shop Niger orders as due, in his time, of an- 
cient usage and immemorial custom. In the 
beginning of the thirteenth century, there- 
fore, the oblations, upon these days and in 
this proportion to the rents, were due by a 
usage then ancient, and by a custom then 



* See a pamphlet entitled " Case respecting the Mainte- 
nance of the London Clergy, briefly stated, and supported 
by reference to authentic documents. By John Moore, 
LL.B. Rector of St Michael's, Bassishaw, and Minor Canon 
of St Paul's, London." It is much to be lamented, that this 
learned gentleman was not encouraged to execute his pro- 
posal of reediting Bishop Walton's treatise of the Tithes of 
London. 

f i. e. " On Sundays, holidays, and the double festivals, 
especially of the apostles whose vigils are fasted." 



441 



become immemorial. There was however 
some'want perhaps of precision in the lan- 
guage of Bishop Niger's ordinance, which 
opened a door to much litigation between 
the clergy of London and their parishion- 
ers. Bishop Niger states the quantum of 
oblation upon every day of offering at one 
farthing for an annual rent of ten shillings, 
one halfpenny for a rent of twenty shil- 
lings, and one penny for a rent of forty 
shillings. But he goes no farther in de- 
scribing the ascending scale ; he mentions 
no higher rent than forty shillings, nor any 
higher payment than one penny ; from 
which the citizens of London had the in- 
genuity to draw this curious conclusion, — 
that one penny was the utmost that could 
be claimed, let the rent be what it might. 
One penny, they allowed, was dernandable 
every offering-day for a rent of forty shil- 
lings ; but they contended, no more was 



442 

demandable if the rent should be forty 
times forty shillings. Archbishop Arun- 
del put out a constitution, in which he in- 
terpreted Bishop Niger's ordinance more 
favourably for the clergy. He declared the 
true sense of it to be, that an additional 
farthing was to be paid for every additional 
ten shillings of rent, to whatever the rent 
might amount. The Archbishop's consti- 
tution was approved and confirmed by the 
Pope ; and the good citizens of London 
submitted : For your Lordships will ob- 
serve, that we are got back to times when 
an ordinance of the diocesan and a metro- 
politan constitution, confirmed by the pa- 
pal bull, was law, and the only law upon 
such questions. 

" But, upon this, the citizens of London 
had recourse to another expedient to lower 
the claims of oblations. They raised a 
question upon the number of days in the 



44:3 

whole year on which the oblations were to 
be paid. It was their point to make them 
as few as possible ; and it was the interest 
of the clergy to make them as many. Bi- 
shop Niger's ordinance said the oblations 
were to be made " Diebus Dorninicis, et 
solennibus, et festis duplicibus, prsesertim 
apostolorum quorum vigiliae jejunantur."* 
About the Sundays there never was any 
difficulty : But for the other festivals, the 
citizens contended, that the words " prseser- 
tim apostolorum quorum vigiliae jejunan- 
tur" were meant to circumscribe the appa- 
rent latitude of the preceding words, " so- 
lennibus et festis duplicibus and to spe- 
cify what solemn days and what double 
festivals were to be days of offering ; and 
that these were only the festivals of those 



* " On Sundays, holidays, and the double festivals, espe- 
cially of the apostles whose vigils are fasted." 



444 



apostles whose vigils were fasted. Those 
in our calendar were never more than they 
are now ; that is, they were no more than 
eight : And those eight days, added to 
the fifty-two Sundays, made sixty days of 
offering in the whole vear, if none of the 
eight days fell upon a Sunday ; which would 
sometimes happen, and reduce the number. 
Sixty days, at one farthing for each day, 
upon a rent of ten shillings, was equivalent 
to a rate of two shillings and sixpence in the 
pound ; which seems, I confess, to be con- 
siderable for the time; and the diminu- 
tion, by the coincidence of festivals and 
Sundays, amounted to no more than four- 
pence upon the twenty shillings rent in 
seven years.* The clergy, however, natu- 



* When the dominical letter is either A, B, or D, through- 
out the year, no one of these eight festivals can fall upon a 
Sunday : When it is F throughout the year, one of them, 
and only one, will fall upon a Sunday : When in the months 



445 

tally wished to make more days of offer- 
ing ; and to more they certainly were en- 
titled by Bishop Niger's ordinance, or ra- 



after February the dominical letter is C or G, one, and only 
one, will foil upon a Sunday : When in those months it is 
E, five of the eight days in question will fall upon Sundays : 
In bissextile years, when the double letter is GF, no one 
of the eight days will fall upon a Sunday : When the dou- 
ble letter is FE, six of them will fall upon Sundays ; one 
for F, and five for E : When the double letter is ED, no 
one will fall upon a Sunday : When the double letter is 
DC, one and no more will fall upon a Sunday : When the 
double letter is CB or BA, no one of the eight will fall 
upon a Sunday: When the double letter is AG, one and no 
more. Hence it will be found, that in the whole cycle of 
the dominical letter (making it begin with G), the clergy 
would lose in the first four years of the cycle, eight days ; in 
the second quaternion, they would loose seven; in the third, 
only two ; in the fourth, six ; in the fifth, two ; in the sixth, 
one ; in the seventh, six. They would lose therefore in 
the twenty-eight years of the whole cycle thirty-two days ; 
that is, they would receive for no more than one hundred 
and ninety-two days in addition to the Sundays, instead of 
two hundred and twenty-four, for which they would have 
received in the course of an entire cycle if none of these 
eight festivals had ever fallen upon a Sunday : Their loss 
therefore would be one shilling and fourpence in the twen- 
ty-eight years upon every annual rent of twenty shillings. 



446 



ther by that ancient usage and immemorial 
custom upon which that ordinance was 
founded. 

" Your Lordships have heard it said, 
that upon this occasion, a sly old pope 
created twenty new saints to bring grist to 
the mill of the London clergy. My Lords, 
I know that this assertion is to be found in 
authors of considerable name, who might 
have been expected to write with more 
caution or with more veracity upon this 
subject : But I was surprised to find, the 
other day, that their authority had imposed 
upon my noble and learned friend upon 
the woolsack. My Lords, I should be ob- 
liged to any noble lord that would give me 
the names of those twenty worthies that 
were canonized upon that occasion, or 
the name of the pope who performed the 
operation. My Lords, they are nowhere to 
be found, — the names of those illustrious 



447 

saints, or the hame of the pope who 
sainted them. The plain matter of fact is 
this. Besides the festivals of those eight 
apostles whose vigils are fasted, there are 
certain days which have always been ob- 
served in the church, — not in the church of 
Rome particularly, but in every church in 
Christendom, — with as much and some of 
them even with more reverence than the fes- 
tivals of any of the apostles ; days not in- 
troduced by any pope, but anterior to all 
Popery ; days which have no reference to 
any saint, ancient or modern, but to our 
Lord himself ; being the anniversaries, or 
days observed as the anniversaries, of the 
most interesting occurrences of our Lord's 
own life : Such are the feast of our Lord's 
nativity, the feast of his circumcision, his 
epiphany. These days, in the whole year, 
were eighteen in number. To these we 
must add the feast of the apostles St Phi- 



448 



lip and St James, and the feast of the na- 
tivity of St John the Baptist ; which were 
always observed as great feasts, although 
the vigil of the former was not fasted. 
These, with the other eighteen, make twen- 
ty days, — -just as many as the Pope is said 
to have added new saints to the calendar : 
To which, however, two more are still to 
be added, being observed in those times in 
every parish, though not in all parishes on 
the same day. These two are the anniver- 
sary of the dedication of the parish-church 
and the feast of the patron saint to whom 
the church was dedicated. We have there- 
fore twenty-two days in the year to be 
added to the eight days of the apostles 
and to the fifty-two Sundays, making in all 
eighty-two days in the year ; for which 
the clergy claimed. And it is remarkable, 
that }n the reign of Henry the Eighth, upon 
an attempt to adjust the differences which 



449 



then subsisted between the clergy of Lon- 
don and their parishioners, the number of 
eighty-two days of offering in the year was 
admitted by a Court of Common Council.* 
It is said, that in the interval between the 
time I am speaking of and the reign of 
Henry the Eighth, the claims of the clergy 
had been carried much higher. About the 
middle of the fifteenth century, an incum- 
bent of one of the city livings sued one of 
his parishioners, in the ecclesiastical court, 
for recovery of oblations withholden : Sen- 
tence was given in favour of the clergy- 
man : The suit made a great noise, and 
the cause was carried by appeal to Rome ; 
where the sentence was confirmed: But 
the City taking the matter up, and disputes 
running very high, King Henry the Sixth 
thought proper to call in the Pope's autho- 



* See Moore's Case of the London Clergy, page 18* 
2 F 

s 



/ 



450 



rityt Nicholas the Fifth, after inquiring 
into the merits of the case, issued his bull 
ratifying the ordinance of Bishop Niger as 
interpreted by Archbishop Arundel and In- 
nocent the Seventh, and confirming the 
sentence given in the case between the 
clergyman and his parishioner. In this 
the number of offering-days, it is said, was 
carried up to one hundred.* And I can 
easily believe it ; for I can easily believe 
that the clergy at this time would think 
they had a right to claim all the days spe- 
cified as solemn festivals, " festa solem- 
niter celebranda," in the provincial consti- 
tution of Archbishop Islep : The number 
of days in that constitution is forty-two ; 
which, added to the fifty-two Sundays, make 
ninety-four (little short of one hundred) in 
the year. Nor can I think the claim of 



* See Moore's Case, page 11 — 17. 



451 



one hundred days fastens on the clergy of 
those times any imputation of rapacity : 
For the number is much short of what they 
might have claimed under the letter of Bi- 
shop Niger's ordinance ; which seems to 
give them all the festa duplicia ; and the 
festa duplicia of the Roman calendar are 
very numerous indeed. However, my Lords, 
in the time of Henry the Eighth, the Com- 
mon Council of London could not reduce 
the offering-days to a number less than 
eighty-two : They admitted the claim of 
the clergy to eighty-two days of offering in 
the year ; and eighty-two, at the old rate 
of one farthing for each day upon every 
ten shillings of rent, is equivalent to a rate 
of three shillings and fivepence in the 
pound. 

" The citizens of London having admit- 
ted the claim of the clergy to this extent, 
I cannot understand upon what principle 



452 



the ciaim was reduced by the 37th of Hen- 
ry the Eighth to two shillings and nine- 
pence in the pound. That statute has 
reference to a decree to be made by com- 
missioners appointed by the King, " for 
the appeasing of divers variances, conten- 
tions, and strifes, which had arisen between 
the parsons, vicars, and curates of the city 
of London, and the citizens and inhabi- 
tants of the same, for and concerning the 
payment of tithes, oblations, and other du- 
ties, within the said city and liberties." 
The preamble of the act sets forth, that 
" as well the said parsons, vicars, and cu- 
rates, as the said citizens and inhabitants, 
had compromitted and put themselves to 
stand to such order and decree, touching 
the premises, as the King's commissioners 
should make :" And the statute enacts, that 
such decree as should be made by the 
King's commissioners, or any six of them, 



453 

before the 1st day of March then next en- 
suing, should " stand, remain, and be as an 
act of Parliament, and bind as well all citi- 
zens and inhabitants of the said city and 
liberties for the time being, as the said 
parsons, vicars, curates, and their succes- 
sors, for ever." And in pursuance of this 
act, the commissioners issue their decree, 
" that the citizens and inhabitants of the 
said city and liberties shall yearly pay their 
tithes" — so the decree says ; but tithes, as 
I have stated to your Lordships, in Lon- 
don mean oblations — " to the parsons,* vi- 
cars, and curates of the said city, and their 
successors, for the time being, after the 
rate hereafter following; viz. of every x 
shill. rent by the year, of all and every 
house and houses, warehouses, &c. within 
the said city and liberties, xvi pence and a 
halfpenny, and of every xx shill. of rent 
by the year, of all and every such house 



454 



and houses, &c. n shill. and ix pence, and 
so above the rent of xx shill. by the year, 
ascending from x to x shill. according to 
the rate aforesaid." 

" Thus, two shillings and ninepence in 
the pound, according to the rents, was fix- 
ed as a composition for the oblations due 
to every incumbent of a living in the city 
of London : And this continues to this 
day to be the legal claim of every city 
clergyman ; except any particular place can 
show a custom of payment at a lower rate, 
or where another mode of payment has 
been established by later statutes. 

" But in no period of time, I believe, 
have the London clergy actually received 
to the amount of this rate of two shillings 
and ninepence in the pound, short as it 
falls of what the Court of Common Council 
in the 20th of Henry the Eighth admitted 
to be their just demand, — viz. three shil- 



455 



lings and fivepence in the pound. But even 
this lowered demand, — upon what princi- 
ple lowered I cannot say, — this lowered 
demand of two shillings and ninepence has 
never been received. By concealment of 
the rents, and various subterfuges, the pay- 
ments were so much reduced, that in the 
reigns of James the First and Charles the 
First, the clergy applied to Parliament 
for redress ; and in the latter reign, the 
King ordered, that the incumbent of every 
living should send in an account of his ac- 
tual receipt at that time from his living : 
The citizens were also required to send in 
their estimate of the actual receipt of each 
living, accompanied with a statement of 
what the annual value of each would a- 
mount to at the rate of two shillings *ind 
ninepence.* These estimates were made ; 



* See Moore's Case, page 35, 36. 



456 



and both parties, the clergy and the citi-* 
zens, appear to have acted with great good 
faith ; for the difference is little or nothing, 
— nothing certainly in the general result, 
but very little in the detail between the 
two statements of actual receipt, that of the 
clergy themselves and that of the citizens ; 
though it was the interest of the clergy to 
put it as low as they could, and of the citi- 
zens to put it as high as they could : But 
they agreed in their separate statements, 
and by that agreement are entitled to the 
highest credit. And by comparing either 
statement of actual receipt with the state- 
ment of real value according to the two 
shillings and ninepence in the pound, it 
appears, that what the clergy received 
was*less than one third of the full value.* 



* See a document annexed to Moore's Case, which is said 
to be preserved among the records of the city, in the Town- 
Clerk's Office. 



457 



The troubles coming on, no measures wete 
taken for their relief ; and they remained 
in statu quo till the fire of London ; which 
gave occasion to a change in the manner of 
providing for the clergy of those parishes 
which were destroyed by the fire, which 
eventually has been very detrimental to 
them. 

" I have stated to your Lordships, that 
after the fire of London, fifty-one livings 
were formed out of the eighty-six parishes 
which had suffered by that calamity. And 
by an act of the 23d of King Charles the 
Second, commonly called the fire-act, a 
certain annual income is appointed for the 
maintenance of the incumbent of every one 
of these livings, to be raised,— or so much 
of it as shall exceed the small stipend paid 
in some parishes by the impropriator, — to 
be raised by equal assessment upon the 
inhabitants. My Lords, I do not believe 



458 



that the Legislature at that time meant to 
deal illiberally by the clergy, or that the 
citizens of that time wished their clergy to 
be illiberally dealt by. It is true, the set- 
tled incomes fell far short of what the 
amount of the legal demand would have 
been just before the fire ; and I find that 
they fall short, upon the whole, just in the 
same proportion in which the actual re- 
ceipt fell short a few years before the fire. 
I imagine, that the intention of the Legis- 
lature was to secure to the clergy what their 
actual receipt had been just before the fire; 
and perhaps it might have been unreason- 
able to lay upon the citizens, under the re- 
cent and heavy pressure of that calamity, 
a greater burden than they had been for 
some years in the habit of sustaining. The 
provision might be competent for the cler- 
gy of that time ; and what is more, I be- 
lieve the clergy of that time were better off 



459 



with the incomes the fire-act gave them 
than they would have been had they been 
left in possession of their claim to two shil- 
lings and ninepence in the pound ; and for 
this reason : Your Lordships will find a 
proviso at the end of the statute 37th of 
Henry the Eighth, " that if any person 
take a tenement for less than the accus- 
tomed rent, by reason of great ruin or de- 
cay, brenning, or such like occasions or 
mischiefs, that then such persons shall pay 
tithes only after the rate of the rent re- 
served in the lease, as long as the same 
lease shall endure and by a clause in 
the act for the rebuilding of London passed 
in the 20th year of Charles the Second, te- 
nants in fee-tail were impowered to grant 
the sites of their demolished houses, upon 
building or repairing leases, as we should 
now call them, for fifty years : The conse- 
quence therefore would have been, that, 



460 



where such leases were granted, the clergy ^ 
left to their demand of two shillings and 
ninepence in the pound, for fifty years to 
come would have received it only upon the 
ground-rents. The condition in which the 
fire-act put them was, I believe, much bet- 
ter for the clergy of that time : But the 
evil was in making the annual income cer- 
tain ; for certain annual income is unim- 
proveable income. If the income was only 
a competence then, it is very evident it 
must be downright beggary now ; and in 
the same proportion and at the same pace 
at which their parishioners have been grow- 
ing rich, the clergy, with this unimprove- 
able income, have been growing poor. If 
the clergyman by his income was upon a 
level with the merchant at the time of the 
Restoration, he is now, with the same in- 
come, hardly upon a level with the junior 
clerk in the merchant's counting-house? 



461 



If he is to be raised to his true level, his 
income must be enlarged. I agree there- 
fore with noble lords who think the real 
fault of the present bill is that the relief it 
will afford will be inadequate. Your Lord- 
ships will recollect, that it was observed by 
a right reverend prelate the other day, that 
of the fifty-one livings which are the object 
of the fire-act, six only amount to 200/. per 
annum : These six will be raised by the pre- 
sent bill to 333/. 6s. 8d. ; — another indeed 
will be advanced to the amazing sum of 
366/. 13s. 4d. ; — this is the great prize, which 
turns up from a late union of two parishes, 
which, by the old act, produce by their se- 
parate incomes put together 220/. : But of 
the fifty-one livings, the far greater part 
will still be under 300/. per annum^ and 
nineteen of them will not exceed 200/. 
And what is even 300/. per annum for the 



462 

maintenance of an incumbent of a London 
living in the present times ? 

" My Lords, it may seem that I might 
have spared this part of the argument ; for, 
with great satisfaction I mention it, the 
principle of the bill is not opposed. No 
one of your Lordships entertains a doubt 
that the provision for the London clergy is 
shamefully insufficient ; and no one of your 
Lordships but wishes it were very consi- 
derably improved. The objection to the 
bill which weighs with some of your Lord- 
ships is, that it is contrary to the establish- 
ed usage of this House, — a usage founded 
in the just attention of the House to private 
property, — to entertain a private bill, unless 
the petitioners for it can show that they 
have the consent of all those whose inte- 
rests may be affected by what they desire 
to be done for their own advantage. My 



463 



Lords, I acknowledge the wisdom and jus- 
tice of this proceeding in all cases of pri- 
vate bills — of bills in which private inte- 
rests only are concerned ; for one private 
interest is not to be advanced at the ex- 
pense of another : But although this bill 
was brought into Parliament by petition, 
and so far carries the shape and appearance 
of a private bill, yet I cannot admit that it 
is really of the nature of a private bill. My 
Lords, it is not a bill for the promotion of 
private interests : In its object it is a pub- 
lic bill ; it is a bill for an object of the 
greatest national importance that can be 
brought before Parliament. My Lords, a 
bill for the better maintenance of the Lon- 
don clergy is a bill for the support of the 
established religion in the metropolis ; and 
with the condition of religion in the me- 
tropolis, its condition in the whole nation 
is nearly and intimately connected. What 



464 



greater national object can your Lordships 
have before you ? — My Lords, when I first 
rose, I was anxious to impress your Lord- 
ships with a persuasion of the fact, that 
the petitioners for this bill are a very great 
majority of the whole body of the London 
clergy. I am apprehensive, that my ear- 
nestness upon that point may lead to a 
misconception of my present argument,— 
that your Lordships may imagine that I 
would put this out of the class of private 
bills because it is for the general interest 
of the London clergy. My Lords, that is 
not my meaning ; — the general interests of 
the London clergy, as a body by them- 
selves, are still but private interests : But, 
my Lords, my argument goes to identify 
those general interests of the London cler- 
gy with the general interests of the whole 
nation. It is upon this ground that I 
maintain that this is no private bill ; bQ- 



465 



cause it is not for a private but for a pub- 
lic object of the first magnitude : And in 
the case of such a bill, it would be a sacri- 
fice of substance to form indeed (which I 
am confident your Lordships will never 
make), if your Lordships were to say " Be- 
cause this bill has been introduced by peti- 
tion, we will not entertain it, unless we 
ha^e before us every individual whose pri- 
vate interests may be in any way affected, 
to give his consent." My Lords, I do 
deny, that upon a measure of great nation- 
al importance, the consent of individuals 
whose interests may be incidentally affected 
is to be sought. Private interests are to 
give way to public advantage ; and for this 
very plain reason, that the individual whose 
interest is in any way deteriorated by a 
measure of public expediency has his com- 
pensation in the share that will come to 

2g 



466 



him of the public good which the measure 
is to produce. 

" Still, my Lords, I know it is appre- 
hended, that the passing of this bill will 
be a dangerous precedent, and open a door 
to many applications which it would be 
very improper to grant and yet difficult to 
refuse when once this is granted. Upon 
what ground, it is said, will you refuse after 
this a legislative relief to any clergyman who 
can show that his provision is inadequate ? 
— And, God knows, this is what many de- 
serving clergymen can too easily demon-, 
strate. One is reduced to a miserable pit- 
tance by a modus which he is compelled to 
receive in satisfaction for the tithes of many 
productive acres and the increase of nume- 
rous flocks and herds : Another performs 
the laborious duty of a populous parish, for 
no better remuneration in this world than 



467 



a scanty stipend paid by the impropriator. 
" Therefore," says the noble and learned 
lord upon the woolsack, " the passing of 
this bill will be a dangerous precedent, un- 
less you can distinguish the case of the 
London clergy from the case of any other 
clergyman who is insufficiently provided." 
My Lords, I say that the case of the Lon- 
don clergy is distinguished : It is distin- 
guished from every other by this very cir- 
cumstance, that they are the London clergy 
— the clergy of the metropolis. My Lords, 
this distinction is not of my invention : It 
is obtruded upon your Lordships' notice by 
the authority of the statute-book ; in which, 
not a single statute, from the earliest times 
to the latest, is to be found relating to tithes 
in general, in which an express exception is 
not made of the case of the London cler- 
gy, — and for no other reason than because 
they are London clergy : They are clergy 



468 



of the metropolis, and their competent 
maintenance is essential to the maintenance 
of the religion of the country ; which is not 
equally to be said in the solitary case of 
any rural clergyman. 

" My Lords, I really can perceive no 
analogy at all between the case of a coun- 
try clergyman beggared by a modus (which 
however is a very deplorable case) and the 
case of the body of the London clergy beg- 
gared by the fire-act. I apprehend that 
every modus (which the courts, if it were 
litigated, would confirm) must have origi- 
nated, or must be supposed in law to have 
originated, in composition real ; and that, 
in every such case, the incumbent, at the 
time when the composition took place, re- 
ceived for himself a valuable consideration 
over and above the small payment reserved, 
to the detriment of his successors. There 
was nothing unlawful in the practice, how- 



469 

ever prejudicial it was to the church and 
to religion, till it was restrained by statute : 
But here was a valuable consideration to a 
person entitled and having at the time a 
right to sell ; and it would be contrary to 
all justice to pretend at this time of day to 
set aside a lawful contract of so long stand- 
ing. But can it be imagined, that the in- 
cumbents of the city livings at the time re- 
ceived any valuable consideration for what 
was subtracted from their legal claims by 
the fire-act ? 

" With respect to impropriations, my 
Lords, it has been argued, that this bill is 
inconsistent with its own principle ; inas- 
much as, proposing to augment the burden 
of the assessment upon the inhabitants, it 
proposes to make no augmentation of the 
burden upon the impropriators : If the 
assessment upon the inhabitants is to be 
augmented, why are not the stipends paid 



470 



by the impropriators to their vicars and 
perpetual curates augmented in the same 
proportion ? It would be only a just impo- 
sition upon them, and would in some de- 
gree ease the inhabitants. — Equitable, my 
Lords, as on the first face of the proposal 
this may seem, it will, I believe, upon a 
closer inspection, appear, that it would nei- 
ther be generally practicable to raise the sti- 
pend paid by the impropriator, nor, were it 
practicable, would it be just. Many of the 
impropriations are in the hands of ecclesi- 
astical bodies, and make the principal part 
of their maintenance ; and these appro- 
priators could but ill afford to expend the 
sources of their own maintenance upon the 
support of their inferior brethren, however 
they may wish their brethren were better 
provided. Then the far greater part of 
these appropriations are under lease ; and 
the proportion in which the revenue of the 



471 

estate is shared between the lessor and the 
lessee is for the most part such that the 
lessee has seldom so little as two thirds, 
and the lessor, in his reserved rents and the 
fines put together, seldom so much as one 
third. And for this reason, the burden of 
the stipend to the vicar or the perpetual 
curate is usually thrown by the lease upon 
the lessee : He pays it as reserved annual 
rent. One of the most valuable appropria- 
tions in the city, I believe, is the rectory 
of St Bridget, commonly called St Brides, 
in Fleet Street : This is appropriate in 
the Church of Westminster: It is under 
lease : In the beginning of the last century, 
there were endless disputes between the 
lessee of the Church of Westminster and 
the inhabitants of the parish : After teasing 
one another with vexatious law-suits till 
both sides were tired out, they united, the 
Dean and Chapter, their lessee, and the pa- 



472 

rishioners, in a petition to Parliament for 
a bill to adjust their differences : A bill 
was accordingly passed, assigning a certain 
annual income of 400/. to the appropriator, 
to be raised by assessment upon the inha- 
bitants of the parish ; and this seemed so 
much below the full value, that many bur- 
dens which properly belonged to the ap- 
propriator were thrown upon the inhabi- 
tants : This annual income of 400/. is un- 
der lease : The Church of Westminster 
receive only their reserved rent, and their 
very moderate septennial fine : — Now, my 
Lords, in this case, would your Lordships 
say " The Church of Westminster should 
be compelled to increase the stipend to the 
Vicar of St Brides?" The Dean and Chapter 
would say " We cannot afford it ; we have 
not the means : Our reserved rent goes, 
with all our reserved rents, to the susten- 
tation of our collegiate church and of our 



473 

famous grammar-school, — to the payment 
of the stipends of minor canons, lay-clerks, 
organists, sacrists, vergers, and to the edu- 
cation of the choristers ; and our reserved 
rents are barely sufficient to this expendi- 
ture : The septennial fines are our own 
maintenance, — liable, however, in a certain 
proportion, and occasionally liable without 
limit, to the repairs of the fabric : From 
what sources are w T e to draw the increase of 
the Vicar's stipend?" If you say "Throw 
the burden upon your lessee, who, it is very 
well known, pays the present stipend," — 
" The lessee" they will reply " will not con- 
sent ; and what means have we of compul- 
sion? We renewed the lease but last year, for 
the accustomed rent and with the old cove- 
nants ; and the lessee will submit to no in- 
crease for twenty years to come, — he will 
hold us to our bargain." Under such cir- 
cumstances, my Lords, I cannot see either 



474 



that the increase of stipend could be prac- 
ticable or that it would be just. 

" Again, in the city, the impropriation 
in many instances is in the parish : The 
parish has bought the impropriation ; and 
in all these cases, to increase the stipend 
would be no ease to the parishioners : It 
would only augment their payments in 
another shape. 

" Some noble lords may perhaps be ap- 
prehensive, that, if this bill pass, we may 
soon be desired to do the same thing for 
the incumbents of those new parishes which 
have been created under the act of Queen 
Anne for building fifty new churches. 
Those incumbents may be supposed to be 
in the same situation as the incumbents of 
the city livings which this act concerns ; in 
so far as their maintenance depends upon 
certain annual income raised by assessment 
on their parishioners. My Lords, the an- 



475 



swer is, that the situations are widely dif- 
ferent. The incumbents of those new pa- 
rishes depend in part only upon fixed an- 
nual income ; it is in part only that their 
incomes are certain and unimproveable : 
Their maintenance, in great part, depends 
upon shares assigned to each of them of a 
sum of money raised by a duty upon coals ; 
and in aid of what that might produce, an 
additional certain annual income is assigned 
them, to be raised by assessment. But the 
commissioners for carrying the acts of Queen 
Anne and King George the First into exe- 
cution were directed to lay out the shares 
of the money raised by the coal-duty either 
in real security or in the public funds. Laid 
out in real security, it is improveable in- 
come ; and I believe the fact is, that it was 
for the most part so laid out. This I know 
to have been the case in two instances, — -in 
the parishes of St Anne's, Limehouse, and- 



St Luke's, Old Street : The incumbent of 
the former is possessed, in right of his liv- 
ing, of a very productive estate in Essex ; 
of the latter, of a very good estate in Mid- 
dlesex, purchased with the money I men- 
tioned. The incumbents therefore of these 
new parishes will have no pretence to soli- 
cit the interference of Parliament to aug- 
ment the unimproveable part of their in- 
come : They are ail already, upon the 
whole, well provided. 

" My Lords, the case which comes the 
nearest to that of the London clergy, so far 
as the individual only is considered, is that 
of the incumbents of livings where the 
tithes have been commuted by act of Par- 
liament for a fixed money-rent. I know 
one remarkable instance of this ; and I 
doubt not but that many more are to be 
found. The tithes of a rectory in Oxford- 
shire, which is in the patronage of the see 



477 

of Rochester, by a bill of enclosure which 
passed before the middle of the last centu- 
ry, when such matters were not so well un- 
derstood as now, were commuted for a cer- 
tain annual payment of 100/. clear of all 
taxes and deductions. It happened that I 
presented to the living not long before I 
was removed from the bishopric of Roches- 
ter ; and by the account I have had of the 
living since, I understand that the tithes 
which were exchanged for 100/. per annum 
now produce 1000/. or 1200/. Rut, my 
Lords, if the Rector of Mixbury should ap- 
ply to Parliament, — if he should say " My 
case is as hard as that of the London clergy: 
Do for me what has been done for them," — 
I should think it a proper answer to him if 
he were told " Your case is indeed very 
hard; but what has been done for the 
London clergy was not done on the consi- 
deration of the hardship upon individuals, 



478 



but in contemplation of the importance 
of maintaining the state and dignity of 
the established religion in the metropolis ; 
which would be ill supported if the great 
body of its clergy were suffered to remain 
in a depressed state ; Your case is very 
hard ; but the public is not materially af- 
fected by the inadequate provision of the 
clergyman of an obscure country village ; 
and a legislative arrangement of property 
of long standing must not be disturbed for 
the sake of an individual." 

" In short, my Lords, I can see no dan- 
ger in the precedent, which, it is appre- 
hended, the passing of this bill will esta- 
blish. The case of the clergy of the me- 
tropolis is so different from any case that 
can be imagined of any private country 
clergyman, or of the clergy of Westmin- 
ster, or of the suburbs, that what is now 
done cannot easily be drawn into prece« 



479 

dent : And since the present bill is for a 
public object, I cannot admit that it is to 
be dealt with as a private bill in this House, 
merely because it was brought into the 
House of Commons by petition ; and that 
the petitioners are to be called upon to 
show, that, requesting that to be done for 
them which the public good requires should 
be done, insomuch that if it is not done 
great public mischief must ensue, — I say, 
my Lords, such petitioners, in my judg- 
ment, are not to be called upon to show 
that they have the express consent of eve- 
ry individual whose interests may be in 
some degree affected by measures of such 
public importance ; for surely, my Lords, 
public advantage must to a certain ex- 
tent overpower private interests. But, my 
Lords, let me not be misunderstood : Far 
be it from me to say, that upon a measure 
of the greatest public importance, if an 



480 



individual has an apprehension of injury in 
his private property he has not a right to 
petition your Lordships, — that it is not 
your Lordships' duty, if he sets forth his 
case, to hear him at the bar upon his peti- 
tion, and to take measures to prevent the 
injury to private property, if injury is like- 
ly to arise ; for although the interests of in- 
dividuals may be, without injustice, in some 
degree deteriorated for the sake of a pub- 
lic end, which cannot otherwise be attain- 
ed, yet injury is not to be done to private 
rights, even for the sake of public good, 
unless the consideration of the pub lic good 
involve considerations of justice which may 
justify what might otherwise be unjust. 
But, my Lords, in the case of the present 
bill, has any individual discovered any ap- 
prehension of detriment to his property ? 
Have we had any petitions against the mea- 
sure ? My Lords, this thing has not been 



481 



done in a corner : There has been no con- 
cealment : The introduction of the bill into 
Parliament was a matter of the greatest 
public notoriety. The draught of the bill 
was communicated to the Court of Com- 
mon Council : The Court referred it to 
the consideration of a committee, and that 
committee to a sub-committee ; which, I 
am told, is the usual way in which such 
business is conducted in the city. The 
principal committee report to the Court of 
Common Council, that the sub-committee 
had reported to them, " that having taken 
the said bill into their consideration, and 
having held several conferences with the 
committee of the clergy thereon (who a- 
greed to some alterations upon their sug- 
gestion), they, after duly considering every 
circumstance in favour of the said incum- 
bents, as also of their respective parishion- 
ers, were of opinion that the said bill, as 
2 H 



482 



it now stands, will not be an unreasonable 
charge on the inhabitants of this city ; and 
therefore may with propriety be acceded to 
by the Corporation : And we (viz. the 
principal committee), agreeing m opinion 
with the said sub-committee, humbly sub- 
mit the same," &c. 

" But, my Lords, this is not all : A- pub- 
lic meeting of the inhabitants of the city of 
London was called, — not by any authority, 
but by those who, delighting in public 
meetings, volunteered their services. One 
meeting at least was held, and came to 
some wise resolutions in reference to this 
application of the clergy to Parliament ; 
which, by order of the meeting, were to be 
communicated to the Lord Mayor, the Al- 
dermen, Deputies, and Common Council of 
the several wards, and the Churchwardens 
of the several parishes, to be by them com^ 
municated to the inhabitants at large, with 
the very evident though not avowed design 



483 

of exciting an opposition to this bill. But, 
my Lords, what did all this advertising, 
and meeting, and resolving, and commu- 
nicating, produce? — Nothing at all, my 
Lords : It certainly tended to turn the at- 
tention of the inhabitants of the whole city 
to the bill but no petition was produced, 
not a mouth was opened, till in the very 
last stage of the bill ; and when the pre- 
sent session of Parliament was supposed to 
be within a few days or rather a few hours 
of its close, a paper was presented purport- 
ing to be a petition of the City of London 
against this bill. My Lords, if a petition 
against any private bill had come, in such 
a stage of the bill and at such a period of 
the session, before a committee above stairs, 
I know what the impression would have 
been upon the mind of a noble friend of 
mine opposite to me, who deserves highly 
of the country for the vigilance with which 



484 



he watches the iniquity of private bills ; I 
know what the impression would have been 
upon my noble friend's mind, and upon 
my own : The mode of opposition would 
have prepossessed us strongly in favour of 
the bill so opposed : We should have said 
" This smells too strong of trick : A peti- 
tion against a bill that has been the whole 
session pending ! — in this stage of the bill, 
and in these expiring moments of the ses- 
sion ! — The opponents feel they have no- 
thing to say against the bill, and they would 
kill it by stratagem." My Lords, I am too 
little acquainted with city politics to pre- 
tend to guess in what way this same peti- 
tion against the bill before your Lordships 
might be procured, — after the bill had re- 
ceived its second reading — after the report 
of the committee above stairs upon the bill 
— when it was before a committee of the 
whole House previous to its third reading. 



485 



My Lords, when first I heard of this fa- 
mous petition, I thought it might be a step 
taken only for the good of the common 
sergeant, — that this bill might not be car- 
ried through without his deriving some 
emolument. My Lords, I mean no disre- 
spect to that learned gentleman ; far from 
it : When he appeared at your Lordships' 
bar, he felt, I suppose, that he had little to 
say in support of the petition ; and he had 
the good sense to say very little. 

" My Lords, under all these circumstan- 
ces, — considering the bill as in substance a 
public bill — considering the want of oppo- 
sition as a tacit consent, if consent were 
wanted, of all persons affected by it — con- 
sidering the importance of the object, — I 
cannot agree to the amendment moved by 
the noble duke ; and I shall certainly say 
" content" upon the question that the word 
" now" stand part of this motion." 



ON THE PETITION FROM THE ROMAN 
CATHOLICS OF IRELAND ; 

May 13, 1805. 



On the 10th of May 1805, Lord Gren- 
ville moved that a petition from his Ma- 
jesty's Roman Catholic subjects of Ireland, 
praying to be released from certain civil 
penalties and disabilities in force against 
them, be taken into consideration : Where- 
upon an animated debate arose ; which last- 
ing to a late hour, was resumed on the 
13th of the same month ; when the Bishop 
of St Asaph rose and said 



487 



c< MY LORDS, 

" In delivering my sentiments 
upon this subject, I hope I shall be able 
to maintain that temper of cool discussion 
which a question affecting so numerous and 
so respectable a description of his Majesty's 
subjects — a question so important and mo- 
mentous in its bearings and consequences 
— demands. 

" My Lords, if I should feel it to be my 
duty to resist the prayer of this petition, 
my vote will not be founded upon any un- 
charitable sentiments entertained by me, 
of that branch of the Christian family which 
holds communion with the church of Rome. 
My Lords, I shall easily find credit with 
your Lordships for this assertion ; I shall 
easily find credit for it with the country ; 
I shall easily find credit for it with the Ro- 
man Catholics themselves : For of every 
measure that has been brought forward, 



488 



during the time that I have had a seat in 
this House, for the relief of the Roman 
Catholics from the old penal laws, it is well 
known I'have been a strenuous support- 
er ; — some measures of a contrary ten- 
dency I have strenuously and successfully 
resisted. 

" My Lords, I do not hold that there is 
any thing in the Roman Catholic religion 
at variance with the principles of loyalty; 
I impute not actual disloyalty, far from it, 
to the Roman Catholics of this kingdom at 
the present day. I do not believe that any 
Roman Catholic of this country, at the 
present day, thinks himself at liberty not 
to keep faith with heretics — not bound by 
his oaths to a Protestant government, or 
that the Pope can release him from the ob- 
ligation of his oath of allegiance to his 
sovereign. The questions upon these points 
which were some years since proposed to 



489 

foreign universities, and to the faculties of 
divinity abroad, and the answers that were 
returned, which a noble earl* this evening 
read in his place, were no news to me : I 
had a perfect knowledge of the questions 
proposed and the answers returned; in 
which these abominable principles were 
most explicitly and unanimously reproba- 
ted by the learned bodies to which the 
questions were propounded ; and I am per- 
suaded, that the Roman Catholics of this 
country are sincere in their disavowal and 
abjuration of those pernicious maxims. I 
hold, that the Roman Catholics of this 
country are dutiful and loyal subjects of 
his Majesty ; and I think them as well en- 
titled to every thing that can be properly 
called toleration, and to every indulgence 
which can be extended to them with safety 



* Earl Albemarle, 



490 



to theprinciples of our constitution, as many 
of those who do us the honour to call them- 
selves our Protestant brethren ; the Roman 
Catholics indeed differing less from us in 
essential points of doctrine, and in church 
discipline, than many of them. But, my 
Lords, my mind is so unfashionably con- 
structed, that it cannot quit hold of the 
distinction between toleration and admis- 
sion to political power and authority in the 
state. The object of toleration, my Lords, 
is conscientious scruples. My Lords, I 
conceive that the Roman Catholics already 
enjoy a perfect toleration : The statutes 
which exclude them from offices of high 
trust and authority in the state are not 
penal ; such exclusions are not penalties ; 
and the relaxation of those statutes would 
not be toleration ; it would be an indul- 
gence of a very different kind : And al- 
though I wish the Roman Catholics should 



491 

enjoy toleration in its full extent, — that 
they should be subject to no penalties for 
any religious opinions which may be pecu- 
liar to them — to no restraint in the use of 
their own forms of worship among them- 
selves, — yet I could not without anxiety 
and apprehension see a Roman Catholic 
upon that woolsack where my noble and 
learned friend now sits, or on the bench of 
justice so worthily occupied by a noble and 
learned lord at my right hand. My Lords, 
this petition goes this length : It prays, 
that a Roman Catholic may be invested 
with the capacity of being any thing in the 
state but king. Now, my Lords, if there 
would be no danger to the constitution to 
admit a Roman Catholic to be any thing 
but king, — if this would be a safe thing to 
do, I confess it is beyond the powers of my 
mind to imagine upon what principle the 
act of settlement can be defended. 



492 



" My Lords, my mind is not yet brought 
to that modern liberality of sentiment 
which holds it to be a matter of indiffe- 
rence to the state of what religion the per- 
sons may be who fill its highest offices: 
I hold, that there is danger to the state, 
when persons are admitted to high offices 
who are not of the religion of the state, be 
it what it may. And, my Lords, I am 
ready to argue this very fairly : I think 
in my conscience, that I myself, being a 
Protestant, should have been a very unfit 
person to have held any high office under 
the old French Government. My Lords, 
the noble Secretary of State, in the former 
night's debate, argued this point of the in- 
expediency of admitting persons differing 
in religious persuasion from the state, — he 
argued it from the practice of antiquity; 
and he argued justly. It certainly was the 
policy of all the states of antiquity to re- 



493 



quire that persons in office in the state 
should be of the established religion of 
the country. My Lords, I shall argue 
from the sad experience which modern 
times afford of the mischief of giving 
way to the contrary principle. My Lords, 
having said that I will argue from modern 
times, I may seem to be going somewhat 
back, if I mention the French Hugonots ; 
but, my Lords, they are an instance in 
point. I will say, that the Hugonots were 
very bad subjects of Roman Catholic 
France : They became bad subjects in con- 
sequence of the extravagant indulgences 
which for a long series of years they were 
permitted to enjoy : They became at last 
so bad, that the French Government was 
provoked to revoke those indulgences ; and 
the cruel persecution took place which 
drove them from their country. The per- 
secution was cruel, but it was the natural 



494 



effect of impolitic indulgence ; and such 
indulgence may always be expected to ter- 
minate in such cruelty. But, my Lords, I 
rely chiefly on the events of much later 
times— of our own times. My Lords, I 
ask, what was the real beginning and radi- 
cal cause of that dreadful convulsion which 
at this moment shakes all Europe ? What 
was the real beginning and first cause of 
the subversion of the ancient French Go- 
vernment, and of the overthrow of the ve- 
nerable Gallican church ? — Was it not the 
placing of Neckar, that Protestant repub- 
lican, at the head of the counsels of monar- 
chical Roman Catholic France ? 

" Now, my Lords, if there be danger in 
admitting a Protestant to any high part in 
a Roman Catholic government, the danger 
certainly must be rather greater of admit- 
ting a Roman Catholic to any high part in 
a Protestant government ; and for this 



495 



reason, — that the Roman Catholic pledges 
his obedience, within a certain limit, to a 
foreign power ; which is not the case of the 
Protestant. I say, my Lords, within a cer- 
tain limit ; for I am aware of the distinc- 
tion between the spiritual supremacy of the 
Pope, which is all which our Roman Ca- 
tholics acknowledge, and his authority in 
civil matters, which they renounce ; and I 
believe them to be perfectly sincere in that 
renunciation. But, my Lords, there is such 
a connexion between authority in spiritual 
matters and in civil, that I apprehend some 
degree of civil authority may indirectly 
arise out of the spiritual supremacy ; inso- 
much that the conscientious Roman Ca- 
tholic may sometimes find himself ham- 
pered between his acknowledgment and his 
renunciation. It is true, however, that the 
Roman Catholics of this part of the United 
Kingdom explicitly renounce even that in- 



496 



direct authority of the Pope in civil mat- 
ters: For the English Roman Catholic 
swears, that " he does not believe that the 
Pope of Rome, or any other foreign prince, 
prelate, state, or potentate, hath, or ought 
to have, any temporal or civil jurisdiction, 
power, superiority, or preeminence, direct- 
ly or indirectly, within this realm/' I very 
well remember, my Lords (and I have 
reason to remember it, for I had a great 
share in that business), that when the oath 
to be imposed upon the Roman Catholics 
was under consideration in this House, 
there was some hesitation about the word 
" indirectly." Some of us thought, that it 
would be pressing too hard upon the con- 
science of the Roman Catholic to make 
him abjure that which might seem to be 
an appendage only of what he was permit- 
ted to acknowledge. The word, however, 
was after some debate inserted : It stands 



9 



497 



in the oath ; and the English Roman Ca- 
tholic abjures even that indirect authority 
of the Pope in temporal and civil matters. 
Still, I fear, the line of demarcation be- 
tween spiritual and temporal it may not 
always be easy to define ; and I must ob- 
serve, that the Irish oath is not drawn with 
the same precision : The word " indirect- 
ly" is omitted ; and there is another im- 
portant omission ; the Irish Roman Catho- 
lic does not, so explicitly as the English, 
bind himself to maintain the Protestant 
succession. 

" My Lords, having mentioned these 
oaths, I must take occasion, in justice to 
the Roman Catholic clergy of England, to 
set right a matter which I think was inac- 
curately stated by a noble and learned lord 
in the former night's debate. That noble 
and learned lord seemed to think that the 
Roman Catholic clergy of this country 

2i 



498 

scrupled to make those abjurations which 
their laity have made ; and he told your 
Lordships, that when the bill for the relief 
of the Roman Catholics was brought into 
Parliament, the apostolical vicars put forth 
an encyclical letter forbidding the people 
of their communion to take the oath pre- 
pared for them. Now, my Lords, it is 
very true that the apostolical vicars forbade 
the taking of that oath which stood in the 
bill originally brought into the House of 
Commons and which actually passed that 
House: But their objection to the oath 
was not, that they were unwilling that their 
people should swear to the maintenance of 
the Protestant succession, or to the renun- 
ciation of the Pope's indirect as well as di- 
rect authority in temporals ; but the oath, 
as it was framed in the Lower House, con- 
tained some theological dogmata, which 
they deemed, and in my judgment rightly 



499 



deemed, impious and heretical. The dog- 
mata to which I allude amounted to an 
abjuration of the legitimate authority of 
the priesthood in the administration of 
what we churchmen call the power of the 
keys ; abjurations, my Lords, which I, a 
Protestant bishop, would not make ; and I 
should impute great blame to any priest 
of mine who should condescend to make 
them. It was on account of these abjura- 
tions that the apostolical vicars reprobated 
the oath as it stood in the first bill ; and 
when the oath was amended in that part, 
as it was in this House, the vicars aposto- 
lic made no farther objection. On the con- 
trary, when the bill had passed, they ex- 
horted their people, clergy as well as laity, 
to take the oath as it now stands ; and they 
have, I believe, themselves taken it. 

" My Lords, at the beginning of this de- 
bate, although I never thought of consent- 



500 



ing to the prayer of the petition in the ex- 
tent to which it goes, yet, I confess, the 
inclination of my mind was not to oppose 
the motion of going into a committee. I 
thought it might best become the gravity 
of your Lordships' proceedings, to consi- 
der the subject in detail — to examine the 
petition article by article ; for, my Lords ? 
I hold not with those who think, that be- 
cause the whole or any thing like the 
whole cannot be granted, nothing might 
be conceded : And it was not till the de- 
bate had made a considerable progress that 
my mind was changed. But I must de- 
clare, that it is now completely changed, by 
the representation that has been made to 
us, by very high authority, of the actual 
state of the Roman Catholic hierarchy in 
Ireland. My Lords, I have long under- 
stood, that the Roman Catholic clergy in 
Ireland were upon a different footing from 



501 



their brethren here. Here, the Roman Ca- 
tholic clergy appear in the unassuming cha- 
racter of mere missionaries : There are no 
diocesan bishops, no parish priests : Eng- 
land is divided into four districts, which 
are superintended in spirituals by four bi- 
shops in partibiiS) — a Bishop of Centuriae, a 
Bishop of Acanthos, &c. ; who take the title 
of vicars apostolic, and exercise their spi- 
ritual authority with great modesty and de- 
corum, and in a manner perfectly inoffen- 
sive to the established church and to the 
state. I knew that in Ireland, each pro- 
vince has its titular archbishop, each dio- 
cese its titular bishop, and each parish its 
titular priest ; but I had no conception, till 
a noble and learned lord informed us of it, 
that these titular prelates and priests claim 
to be the rightful possessors of the respec- 
tive sees and parishes, and treat the pre- 
lates and priests of the established church 



502 



as usurpers and intruders. I had no con« 
ception that the titular Archbishop of Ar- 
magh would publicly take to himself the 
style of Armachens, and designate the Lord 
Primate by the simple appellation of Dr 
Stuart. The withholding from the Lord 
Primate the title which belongs to him, in 
itself is no great matter ; but the claim to 
jurisdiction, in exclusion of the established 
prelacy and priesthood, is another thing. 
A noble duke on the opposite bench has 
said, in exculpation of them, that these Ro- 
man Catholic prelates are really bishops. 
Most undoubtedly, my Lords, they are bi- 
shops as truly as any here : They are of 
the episcopal order ; and men, I dare say, 
in their individual character, highly worthy 
of that preeminence in the church. But, 
my Lords, I am sure the noble duke knows 
enough of our ecclesiastical matters, to be 
apprized of* the distinction between the 



503 



" power of order" and the " power of ju- 
risdiction." The " power of order" these 
Roman Catholic prelates possess ; but the 
" power of jurisdiction" does not of neces- 
sity attach upon the " power of order." A 
man may be a bishop, and yet it follows 
not of necessity that he is bishop of a 
diocese. The two powers, that of order 
and that of jurisdiction, are quite distinct, 
and of distinct origin : The power of or- 
der is properly a capacity of exercising the 
power of jurisdiction conferred by a com- 
petent authority ; and this power of order 
is conveyed through the hierarchy itself, 
and no other authority but that of the 
hierarchy can give it. The only compe- 
tent authority to give the power of epis- 
copal jurisdiction in this kingdom is the 
Crown. It is true, that in this part of the 
United Kingdom, that power may seem in 
some degree to flow from the hierarchy ; 



504 



because we have the form of an election of 
a person to be bishop of a vacant see, by 
the clergy of the cathedral : But this is a 
mere form ; the Chapter cannot proceed to 
elect without the King's licence : The 
King's licence to elect is always accompa- 
nied with his Majesty's letter missive, re- 
commending a fit person to their choice ; 
and it always so falls out, that the Chapter 
agree with the King in their opinion of the 
fitness of the person. In substance, there- 
fore, the collation of the diocesan jurisdic- 
tion is from the Crown. In Ireland, the 
collation of the power of jurisdiction is, 
both in form and in substance, from the 
Crown solely ; for the prelates of that part 
of the kingdom are appointed to their re- 
spective sees without any conge d'elire^ or 
any form of an election by letters patent 
under the great seal. In neither part 
therefore of this kingdom can there be any 



505 



legitimate power of jurisdiction but what is 
conferred by the Crown ; and the claim of 
such a power independent of the Crown is 
a most outrageous violation of the very first 
principles of our ancient constitution. 

" But, my Lords, unwarrantable as this 
claim of the Roman Catholic prelates in 
Ireland appears to be, I am still more a- 
larmed by the manner in which, as we have 
been informed by the noble and learned 
lord,* they exercise their spiritual autho- 
rity. My Lords, when the noble and learn- 
ed lord entered upon this topic with a re- 
mark that we here in England have no 
idea what excommunication is in Ireland 
— that it is really a dreadful thing ; and 
seemed to make this the ground of some 
charge he had to bring against the Roman 
Catholic clergy of Ireland, — my mind, I 



* Lord Redesdale. 



506 



confess, was all puzzle and amazement : I 
could not imagine what this might be ; and 
surmises arose of the very contrary of that 
which I now understand to be the case. 
Excommunication in Ireland a dreadful 
thing ? — Why, I said to myself, to a Chris- 
tian, to one who really believes, how should 
excommunication, in the true meaning of 
the word, in Ireland or anywhere else, not 
be a dreadful thing? Excommunication, in 
the true meaning of the word, is the sepa- 
ration of a Christian, leading a disorderly 
life disgracing his profession, from the 
Christian congregation — a banishment of 
him from the church : And this separation 
every Christian must consider as a state of 
great danger and peril ; for, as the pro- 
mises of the gospel are all made to the 
church in its corporate capacity, and ex- 
tend to the individual only as a member of 
that elect society (none but fanatics hold 



507 

the contrary), to be severed from that so- 
ciety is to be excluded from all share in 
the blessings and promises of Christianity. 
This is excommunication ; and this is cer- 
tainly a dreadful thing. Excommunication, 
as it is practised here in England, I know 
very well, in itself is no dreadful thing ; it 
carries no terror with it but in its secular 
consequences : But this is because what we 
call excommunication is not really what 
the word means ; and I have always con- 
sidered the manner in which it is used a- 
mong us as little better than a profanation 
of a most sacred rite of discipline. It is 
used with us merely as an engine to sup- 
port the authority of the ecclesiastical 
courts. If a man disobeys a citation, and 
persists in his neglect of it, excommunica- 
tion is denounced, though the object of the 
citation should lie in some of these secular 
matters which by our laws are submitted 



508 



to the cognizance of these courts. The 
sentence is pronounced by a layman, with- 
out anything striking in the manner of it; 
and, if the offender still persists, at the ex- 
piration of certain days, comes indeed a 
dreadful thing ; he is committed to prison, 
by virtue of the writ de excommunicato ca- 
piendo — a writ issuing from a secular court ; 
and there he must remain, till, in the lan- 
guage of Doctors Commons, he has made 
" his peace with the church," i. e. till he 
has made his submission to the court. The 
person on whom the sentence falls all the 
while finds not the burden of any thing 
properly to be called a sin upon his con- 
science : He is not aware that he has of- 
fended the church ; for his imagination 
cannot identify the ecclesiastical court, in 
which a layman sits as judge, taking cog- 
nizance perhaps of matters of a secular 
nature, with the church ; and he perceives 



509 



not that religion has any thing to do in 
the business. Such excommunication has 
certainly nothing dreadful in itself, but in 
the imprisonment only which follows. 
Such was not the primitive excommunica- 
tion. The objects of that dreadful sen- 
tence were none but notorious sinners, — 
fornicators, usurers, idolaters, railers, drunk- 
ards, extortioners:* It was pronounced 
with awful solemnity, in the full assembly 
of the church, by the bishop himself, or 
some person specially delegated by him : 
It produced the greatest consternation in 
the conscience of the sinner ; and generally 
brought him to a sense of his guilt, and 
produced a reformation, which nothing- 
short of this severity could have effected. 
When the noble and learned lord said that 
excommunication in Ireland was a dreadful 



* 1 Corinthians, v. 11. 



510 



thing,. the surmise that naturally rose in 
my mind was, that the excommunications 
of the Irish prelates were something more 
resembling the primitive excommunica- 
tions than that is which our courts call 
excommunication ; and I wondered how 
this was to be turned to the reproach 
of the Roman Catholic bishops. But 
when the noble and learned lord went 
on, he soon made me understand, that 
their excommunication is no less a profa- 
nation, though in a different way, but no 
less, if not more a profanation of the rite, 
than our practice. It is indeed a dreadful 
thing; but not dreadful simply by the 
alarm of the excommunicated person's con- 
science, but by the worldly distress it brings 
upon him : It is not simply a separation 
from the body of the faithful, but it is, to 
all intents and purposes, an interdiction ab 
aqua et igne. No Roman Catholic dares 



511 



to administer a crust of dry bread or a cup 
of cold water to the person under this in- 
terdiction ; and the offence which draws 
down this horrible sentence is any friendly 
intercourse which a Roman Catholic may 
be found to hold with Protestants. My 
Lords, this is an abominable abuse of the 
power which Christ has placed in the hands 
of the governors of his church, — not to de- 
stroy the worldly comforts of men,, but for 
the salvation of their souls. No precedent 
is to be found for such tyranny in the con- 
duct of the apostles. The first instance of an 
excommunication upon record took place, 
in a very early period, in the church of Co- 
rinth : A member of that church was 
leading a most flagitious life ; and the pro- 
cess of the excommunication was this. 
The apostle St Paul, not being able to at- 
tend in person, issues his peremptory man- 
date to the church of Corinth to assemble, 



512 



and, in full congregation, " in the name of 
our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the power 
of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver the of- 
fender unto Satan" — that is, to expel him 
from the church ; by which he would be de- 
prived of those assistances which the church 
affords to resist Satan, — "for the destruction 
of the flesh," — not that the man was to be 
starved — driven from civil society, and re- 
duced to perish with cold and hunger and 
thirst ; but for the mortification of the 
carnal appetites ; for the flesh here evi- 
dently signifies the appetites of the flesh : 
And this flesh was to be thus destroyed 
to this intent and purpose, w that the spirit 
might be saved in the day of the Lord 
Jesus :" And the spirit in that day will be 
saved ; for the man was brought to re- 
pentance ; and upon his repentance, the 
apostle writes to the church again, to re- 
ceive the penitent again into their commu- 



513 



aiion, and to " confirm their love to him." 
And it appears that offenders under this 
dreadful sentence were still treated with 
great charity and commiseration ; for thus 
the same apostle writes to the church of 
Thessalonica : " We command you, bre- 
thren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
that ye withdraw yourselves from every 
brother that walketh disorderly ; and if any 
man obey not our word by this epistle, 
note that man, and have no company with 
him, that he may be ashamed : Yet count 
him not as an enemy , but admonish him as 
a brother" Very different this from the 
despotism which we are told is exercised 
by the titular bishops in Ireland over per- 
sons of their own communion. 

" My Lords, in this state of the Roman 
Catholic hierarchy in Ireland, it would be 
in vain to go into a committee to take this 
petition into consideration ; for certainly 

2 K 



514 



nothing of political power and influence 
can be conceded to the Roman Catholics 
in Ireland beyond what they already en- 
joy, unless their hierarchy can be reduced 
to a less offensive form, and checked in 
the monstrous abuse of their spiritual au- 
thority. I should hope that neither of 
these things is impracticable, — that both 
may be effected, by the influence of per- 
sons of rank of that persuasion with their 
pastors, concurring with Government in 
mild measures for the attainment of these 
ends. But if these ends cannot be attain- 
ed by the concurrence of the Roman Ca- 
tholics themselves with Government, I con- 
fess we seem to be reduced to this dilem- 
ma, — either this hierarchy must be crush- 
ed by the strong arm of power (God for- 
bid the dreadful necessity should arise), or 
the Roman Catholic church must be the 
established church of Ireland. My Lords, 



515 



if the thing were res integra, — if we had 
now to form a constitution for Ireland ab 
initio, — I have no hesitation in saying, that 
it might be matter of grave deliberation 
which of the two measures should be 
adopted. But this is not the case. The 
Irish constitution is settled — settled long- 
since, upon the basis of Protestantism ; 
and that constitution so settled has been 
recently confirmed by the pacta conventa 
of the Union. When I speak, however, of 
crushing the Roman Catholic hierarchy in 
Ireland, I mean not that the Roman Ca- 
tholics of that country should be deprived 
of the superintendence of bishops ; but 
their bishops should not be allowed to as- 
sume diocesan jurisdiction in exclusion of 
our own prelacy, or even coordinate with 
it; nor should they be suffered to domineer 
in the manner we are told they do. 



516 



" My Lords, if these difficulties stood 
not in the way, I should be ready to go in- 
to a committee. Still I should oppose the 
prayer of the petition, in the extent to 
which it goes ; for this among other rea- 
sons, — that I think a compliance with it 
would be the worst thing that could befall 
the Roman Catholics as well as ourselves : 
The immediate effect of it, I think, would 
be, to revive that detestable rancour be- 
tween Protestants and Roman Catholics 
which has for so many years been the dis- 
grace of the Western church, but is dying 
away if we only let alone what is welL" 



ON THE SLAVE-TRADE ; 
June 24, 1806. 



The House of Commons having resolved, 
on the 18th of June 1806, on the aboli- 
tion of the slave-trade, — after the division 
on the original question, a motion was 
made and carried by Mr Fox, that a con- 
ference should be desired with the Lords, 
pn a subject particularly connected with 
the honour and humanity of the nation ; 
and that the Chancellor of the Exche- 
quer (Lord Henry Petty) should be or- 
dered to attend their Lordships for that 
purpose. After the conference, Lord Gren- 
ville moved in the House of Lords, on 
the 24th of the same month, the order of 



518 



the day for taking into consideration the 
resolution which had been sent up from the 
Commons ; and concluded with moving 
that their Lordships should concur in the 
said resolution. This was opposed by 
Lord Hawkesbury ; who moved the pre- 
vious question. Upon this a debate arose j 
in which the Bishop of St Asaph support- 
ed the original motion. 



" mst lords, 

" Consistently with the senti- 
ments which for years I have been avow- 
ing in this House, I cannot but declare my 
entire approbation of the motion of the 
noble lord, to agree in the resolutions of 
the House of Commons, communicated to 
us in a late conference, respecting the 
slave-trade. And, my Lords, this appro- 
bation I for my part shall be ready to de- 



« 



"519 

clare in any month of the year, any day 
of the month, and any hour of the day.* 

" My Lords, in the discussion of this 
subject, I could wish that the two questions 
of slavery and the slave-trade had been 
kept as distinct as they are in their own 
nature, and as they were represented to be 
by the noble lord who brought this busi- 
ness forward. But in the arguments of the 
two noble lords who have spoken on the 
other side, they have been perpetually con- 
founded : Nay, indeed, one of those noble 
lords, the noble earl opposite to me in the 
blue riband, has gone so far as to say, that 
the two things, slavery and the slave-trade, 
. are one and the same ; at least, that they 
are so far the same, that we who contend 
for the total abolition of the slave-trade 
ought upon our own principles, the noble 



* The Earl of Westmoreland objected to the agitation 
of the question at this late period of the session. 



520 

earl has been pleased to say, to propose 
the immediate emancipation of the slaves 
already on the islands. My Lords, I can 
easily suppose that the noble earl imagines 
that he understands upon what principles 
my opinion is founded better than I my- 
self understand : I dare say he thinks so. 
But, my Lords, I can perceive no connex- 
ion, and there is no connexion, between 
the emancipation of the persons actually in 
slavery and the abolition of the slave-trade. 
I might think, as I do think, the immediate 
emancipation of the slaves a measure to be 
strenuously resisted, and yet not think 
myself, for that reason, obliged to vote 
that the means which are used by us to 
keep up the supply of slaves are fit to be 
put in practice. However, my Lords, I 
agree, that in discussing the merits of the 
slave-trade, it is fit previously to take a 
view of slavery itself ; And, my Lords, I 



621 



agree with the noble lord near me, the mo- 
ver of the question, that slavery is itself 
an evil of the very first magnitude — a ca- 
lamity to those on whom it falls — a cala- 
mity the heaviest, the most dreadful, of all 
which are incident to mortal man. My 
Lords, the evil of the thing is this, — that 
it is a degradation of man from the condi- 
tion of man. The moment that any one 
becomes a slave, he is in the state and con- 
dition of man no longer : He is no longer 
master of his own body or his own mind ; 
he has no longer any property in him- 
self, or in the exertions of his own in- 
dustry. And, my Lords, this is an answer 
to all those arguments in favour of the slave- 
trade which are drawn from the humane 
treatment the negroes meet with in the 
West Indies from the planters. My Lords, 
I do not call in question the humanity of 
the planters ; I doubt not that their hu- 



522 



inanity generally administers to their slaves 
all the consolations the condition is capa- 
ble of receiving. But what can the utmost 
humanity of the master -do for the slave ? 
— He may feed him well, clothe him well, 
work him moderately ; but, my Lords, no- 
thing that the master can do for his slave, 
short of manumission, can reinstate him in 
the condition of man, from which man 
ought not to be detruded. My Lords, 
with concern and indignation I have often 
heard it argued in this House, that under 
the kind treatment of the planters, the ne- 
groes in the West Indies live as comforta- 
bly as our own peasantry. My Lords, with 
respect to mere animal enjoyment, it may 
be true ; but mere animal enjoyment is not 
the great consolation of man's existence. 
Our British peasant, sustaining himself and 
his family upon his homely meal of coarse 
barley bread and skimmed milk, and stretch- 



523 



ing his weary limbs at night upon his pal- 
let bed, is independent — the master of 
himself, and the father of his own family : 
The bread he eats, and distributes to his 
children, is his own : He sleeps upon his 
own bed : All the fatigue he endures is 
for himself ; he toils for himself and his 
own family — not for a master : His com- 
forts depend not upon the precarious 
kindness of a master : He is a man ; 
he holds the rank and dignity of man in 
civil society. But the negro slave in the 
West Indies ! — my Lords, you may pamper 
him every day with the choicest viands, — 
you may lay him to repose at night on one 
of your " beds of roses," * — but with all this, 

* These words allude to what had passed in debate a few 
nights before in the Lower House. One of the members of 
the new Ministry complained of the disordered state in which 
their predecessors, upon their retirement from office, had 
left the affairs of Government. In reply, it was said, that 
so far from this being the case, the very reverse was the 



he is not in the condition of man ; he is 
nothing better than a well-kept horse. 

" My Lords, this is my notion of slave- 
ry. But whether this evil ought to be abo- 
lished by legislative measures, is not the 
question before us : The question before 
us is, Whether the means which we em- 
ploy to reduce every year thousands and 
myriads of the human race with whom we 
have no ground of quarrel to this deplora- 
ble state, few of whom would otherwise 
ever have been reduced to it, are such as 
ought to be employed by a great nation 
like this, pretending to conduct itself by 
the eternal laws of justice, and professing 
the Christian religion. 

truth ; that the business of the public offices had never been 
left by any administration in a more regular train than by 
the last ; that the new Cabinet would find every thing ready 
prepared to their hands ; and would have nothing to do but 
pocket the emoluments of office, and " repose on beds of 
roses." 



V 



525 



" My Lords, with respect to the huma- 
nity and the justice of the slave-trade, — that 
it is inhumane, that it is unjust, is a matter 
so manifest to my mind, that I declare I 
know not how to argue it : The proposition 
is so very clear, that I know not where to 
find media of proof to make the truth of it 
more evident. 

" My Lords, what is humanity ? — Is it 
not a desire to promote the happiness of all 
of the human species with whom we come 
in contact? Is our slave-trade consistent 
with this humanity ? 

" What is justice, my Lords ? — Is it not 
to do to others as we wish they should do 
to us ? — to do as we would be done by ? 
Is the slave-trade consistent with this jus- 
tice ? 

" My Lords, if the slave-trade be inhu- 
mane and unjust, I need not at present ar- 
gue its impolicy. The noble lord opposite 



.526 



has admitted, that if it can once be proved 
to be inhumane and unjust, it must be im- 
politic. My Lords, I rejoiced in the ad- 
mission : I knew the noble lord was sin- 
cere in w T hat he said ; he spoke the gene- 
rous sentiments of his heart : And I ve- 
joice to find, that he thinks, as I do, that in 
public measures as well as in private life, 
honesty is the best policy, and that nothing 
can be politic which is inhumane or unjust. 
The slave-trade is inhumane, is unjust ; 
therefore it is impolitic. Upon the point 
of policy, therefore, I shall say no more at 
present. 

" I pass now to another topic, — the reli- 
gion of the question. I thought, indeed, 
a reverend prelate near me had left me lit- 
tle to say on the scriptural part of the sub- 
ject : And little, indeed, I should have had 
to say, — nothing, but to declare my entire 
concurrence in the sentiments of that reve- 



527 



rend prelate, — had not his argument been 
answered in so masterly a manner by the 
noble earl in the blue riband, learned in 
the Hebrew law ! 

" My reverend brother told your Lord- 
ships, that perpetual slavery was not per- 
mitted by the Jewish law ; — that a native 
Jew could be held in slavery for seven years 
only at the longest ; for he had a right to 
his freedom upon the first return of the 
sabbatical year ; — and that a foreign slave, 
purchased in the market, or captivated in 
war, could be held in slavery for fifty years 
only at the longest ; for the foreign slave 
had a right to his freedom upon the first 
return of the year of jubilee : And from 
these premises, my reverend brother con- 
cluded, that perpetual slavery was unknown 
among the Jews. 

" I confess I was carried away by the 
fair appearance of my reverend brother's 



528 



arguments, till, to my great surprise and 
his utter confusion, the noble earl rose* 
with his Bible in his hand, and quoted 
chapter and verse against him ! 

" My Lords, with respect to the native 
Hebrew slave, we have this law, which was 
quoted by my reverend brother : " If thy 
brother, an Hebrew man or an Hebrew 
woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee 
six years, then in the seventh thou shalt 
let him go free from thee : And when 
then thou sendest him out free from thee, 
thou shalt not let him go away empty ; 
thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy 
flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy 
wine-press ; of that wherewith the Lord 
thy God hath blessed thee, thou shalt give 
unto him."— Deut. xv. 12 — 14. And with 
respect to the foreign slave, we have this 
law, quoted likewise by my reverend bro- 
ther : " Thou shalt number unto thee seven 



529 



sabbaths of years — forty and nine years : 
Then shalt thou cause the trumpet of the 
jubilee to sound throughout all the land : 
And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and 
proclaim liberty throughout all the land, 
to all the inhabitants thereof." — Lev. xxv. 
8 — 10. The manumission of the Hebrew 
slave on the seventh year was provided for 
by the other law : Under the expression, 
therefore, of all the inhabitants, foreign 
slaves must be comprehended; for none 
but foreign slaves could remain to be ma- 
numitted in the fiftieth year. 

" My Lords, there is a circumstance, not 
touched upon by my reverend brother, — 
but there is a passage in the law, which I 
have always considered as a strong argument 
of the lenity with which slaves were treated 
among the Jews, and of the efficacy of the 
provisions the law had made to obviate the 

2l 



530 



wrongs and injuries to which the condition 
is obnoxious. My Lords, I am afraid I 
cannot, by memory, refer exactly to the 
place ; but the noble earl there, with his 
Bible, I am sure will have the goodness to 
help me out, and turn up the passage for 
me. My Lords, it is a passage in which 
the law provides for the case of a slave 
who should be so attached to his master, 
that when the term of manumission fixed 
by the law should arrive, the slave should 
be disinclined to take advantage of it, and 
wish to remain with his master ; and the 
law prescribes the form in such case to be 
used, by which the master and the slave 
should reciprocally bind themselves, the 
slave to remain with his master for life, and 
the master to maintain him. This I have 
always considered as a strong indication of 
the kindness with which slaves were treat- 



581 



ed among the Jews ; else whence should 
arise that attachment which this law sup- 
poses ? 

" But we are all in the wrong, it seems, 
my reverend brother and I ; we reason from 
specious premises, but to false conclusions. 
The noble earl has produced to your Lord- 
ships a passage in the Levitical law, which 
enacts, that the foreign slave should be the 
property of his master for ever ; whence 
the noble earl concludes, that the perpe- 
tual servitude of foreign slaves was actually 
sanctioned by the law. But, my Lords, I 
must tell the noble earl, and I must tell 
your Lordships, that the noble earl has no 
understanding at all of the technical terms 
of the Jewish law. In all the laws relating 
to the transfer of property, the words " for 
ever" signify only " to the next jubilee :" 
That is the longest "for ever'" which the 
Jewish law knows with respect to proper- 



532 



ty ; and this law, which makes the foreign 
slave the property of his master for ever, 
makes him no longer the master's proper- 
ty than to the next jubilee. And, with the 
great attention thenoble earl has given to the 
laws and history of the Jews, he must know, 
that when they were carried into captivity, 
they were told by their prophets, that one 
of the crimes which drew down that judg- 
ment upon them, was their gross neglect 
and violation of these merciful laws re- 
specting manumission ; and that, in con- 
tempt and defiance of the law, it had been 
their practice to hold their foreign slaves 
in servitude beyond the year of jubilee. 

" My Lords, much has been said, espe- 
cially by the noble earl, about the antiqui- 
ty of slavery. Certainly the condition of 
slavery has subsisted in the world from the 
earliest times; but the slavery of the early 
ages,— though slavery, in its mildest form, I 



533 



ever will maintain to be a dreadful evil,— 
but it was a very different thing from the 
negro slavery in the West Indies. But, 
my Lords, slavery is not the thing in 
question : The only thing in question is 
the slave-trade. We have heard indeed 
much of the antiquity of that trade. My 
Lords, be its antiquity what it may, I can- 
not admit that any prescription of time can 
give a sanction to inhumanity and injus- 
tice : But let us look a little into this plea 
of antiquity. 

" Now, my Lords, I know very well, 
that from the highest antiquity, slaves 
have been an article of commerce, — that 
they were in all times to be bought in the 
marts upon the coasts of the Red Sea and 
the Mediterranean. But, my Lords, I ask 
the noble earl in the blue riband, who has 
so much insisted upon this topic of anti- 
quity, has he, in the whole compass of his 



534 



reading, found in all antiquity any thing 
analogous to our slave-trade ? Can he tell 
me of any ancient nation which was in the 
practice of fitting out fleets of ships an- 
nually, to transport the inhabitants of any 
particular country, against their will, torn 
violently from their native soil, their habi- 
tations, and their families, to hard cruel 
slavery in a foreign clime ? Was there 
any thing in ancient times bearing the least 
resemblance to the modern slave-trade ? — 
My Lords, I deny it ; there was no such 
thing. Does the noble earl, who with so 
much force of eloquence has described 
the flourishing state of slave-trade in an- 
cient times, in Persia, in Greece, in Egypt, 
among the Romans, all over the world, — 
does the noble earl seriously believe, that 
there was to be found in the fleets of any 
ancient nation — that there was to be found 
upon the Mediterranean, the Red Sea, or 



535 



the Euxine, in the Euphrates, or the Tiber, 
a single vessel constructed upon the model 
of a British Guinea-ship ? — a vessel form- 
ed to stow the greatest possible number 
of persons in the smallest space, with every 
contrivance for the profit of the trader, 
and without the least attention to the com- 
forts or consideration of the sufferings of 
the miserable victims of that infamous traf- 
fick. — My Lords, again I say, there was no 
such thing. Slaves may have always been 
an article of trade ; but the slave-trade 
carried on in vessels fitted for the trans- 
port of no other commodity but the per- 
sons of men in chains — of men and wo- 
men, boys and girls, unjustly captivated, is 
of modern date. My Lords, that in an 
cient times there was no such trade, it is 
not incumbent on me to prove ; I call up- 
on the other side to prove that there was. 
They cannot prove it ; I defy them ; they 



536 

cannot produce a particle of proof. But, 
my Lords, I will go farther than the rules 
of argumentation oblige me to go : Not 
content with the total defect and absence 
of proof on the other side, I will argue 
for the negative, from a notorious fact in 
the history of the Romans. My Lords, 
the Romans had in their best times some 
negro slaves ; but they had very few of 
them, — their negroes bore a very incon- 
siderable proportion to the working slaves 
upon their farms ; whereas, had there been 
any thing of a slave-trade in the world in 
those times, their negro slaves must have 
greatly outnumbered all the rest. - 

f My Lords, having disposed of the an- 
tiquity of the trade, I come again to the 
religious part of the subject. We find no 
prohibition, it is said, of the slavery in the 
Bible. Certainly not, my Lords ; the pa- 
triarchal religion, and most remarkably 



537 



the Christian religion, avoid as much as 
possible all interference with civil insti- 
tutions. Our Lord delivered general 
maxims of conduct to lay hold of the con- 
sciences of men ; and by the silent effect of 
those general maxims, and not by more 
violent means, he aimed at the gradual re- 
formation of the manners both of indivi- 
duals and bodies politic. It is not there- 
fore to be concluded of every thing not ex- 
pressly forbidden in Scripture, that it is 
therefore not contrary to the spirit of re- 
vealed religion ; and not being forbidden, 
is approved. 

" But, my Lords, I must again remind 
your Lordships, that we are not to talk 
about slavery, but about the slave-trade ; 
and about slave-trade in its modern shape 
— the Guinea-trade. The noble earl then 
will ask me " What prohibition have we in 
Scripture of the slave-trade ?" — None, my 



538 

Lords. It would indeed have been strange, 
if this modern practice had been prohibited 
to the sons of Noah, or to the children of 
Israel, who never practised it, had no con- 
ception of it, and could only have wonder- 
ed what it was they were forbidden to do. 
It would have been strange indeed, if any 
prohibition of the slave-trade had been to 
be found in the Scriptures of the Old Tes- 
tament. 

" But have we any prohibition of it in 
the New Testament? — None, my Lords, 
absolutely none ; and for the same rea- 
son, — the crime, in its modern shape, was 
unknown in the times of the promulgation 
of the gospel. But, my Lords, although 
we have no explicit prohibition of the slave- 
trade in the New Testament, we have a 
most express reprobation of the trade in 
slaves, even in that milder form in which 
it subsisted in ancient times, — such a re-> 



539 



probation of it as leaves no believer at li- 
berty to say that the slave-trade is not 
condemned by the gospel. The reverend 
prelate near me has cited the passage* in 
which St Paul mentions f. men-stealers" 
among the greatest miscreants. " Men- 
stealers," so we read in our English Bible ; 
but the word in the original is a,v$gcc,7roh?a7g. 
Avc$Gci<7rohs'r l g is literally a " slave-trader;" 
and no other word in the English language 
but " slave-trader" precisely renders it. It 
was indeed the technical name for a slave- 
trader in the Attic law ; and although the 
Athenians scrupled not to possess them- 
selves of slaves, yet the trade in slaves 
among them was infamous. But whatever 
they might think of it, we have reason 
to conclude, from the mention made of 
" slave-traders" by St Paul, that if any of 



1 Timothy, i. 9. 10. 



540 



them should ever find their way to hea- 
ven, they must go thither in company with 
murderers, parricides, and sodomites ! 

" My Lords, it is with reluctance that I 
come to touch upon the impolicy of this 
trade, — its inherent impolicy, I mean, ex- 
clusive of that which consequentially at- 
taches upon it as inhumane and unjust. I 
come to this with reluctance, because I am 
very unwilling to tire your Lordships with 
saying the same thing over and over again ; 
and, upon this part of the subject, I have 
nothing to say but what I have been re- 
peatedly saying upon many former occa- 
sions for the last eighteen years. But, my 
Lords, whenever this subject is brought 
before the House, I cannot acquit myself 
to my own conscience without declaring 
my opinion upon every part of it. My 
Lords, it is the firm persuasion of my mind, 
? — a persuasion not rashly conceived, not 



541 



conceived without an anxious and laborious 
study of the reports of the Privy Council, 
the evidence given at the bar of the House 
of Commons, and the evidence at our own 
bar, — it is my firm persuasion, that sound 
policy no less forbids the continuance of 
this trade than humanity and justice. My 
Lords, I am persuaded, that when the slave- 
trade shall be abolished, the cultivation of 
the West India Islands will rapidly im- 
prove : The number of the negroes will not 
only be kept up, but it will increase by 
their natural propagation : By the kind 
treatment of the planters, insured to them 
by stopping the sources of a new supply, 
they will be gradually approximated to the 
condition of freemen ; and as they approxi- 
mate that condition, their labour will be 
more productive ; for it is agreed on all 
sides, that the labour of a freeman infinitely 
surpasses that of the best slave : The conse- 



542 

quence therefore must be, that West India 
property, instead of being injured by the a- 
bolition, will in a short time greatly increase 
in value. But then, it is said, what are we 
to do with the new lands ? how are they 
to be brought into cultivation without new 
supplies by importation ? — My Lords, I 
say, the proprietors of those lands must be 
content to wait till they are furnished with 
the means of cultivating that property with- 
out crime ; which means, time, and no great 
length of time, will afford, by the natural 
increase of the blacks upon the islands. 
But to contend that the present condition 
of the uncultivated lands justifies the con- 
tinuance of the trade for their speedier cul- 
tivation, is in effect to say, that the pos- 
session of a certain quantity of land in a 
barren state gives the owner a right to 
manure his soil with the carcasses of mur- 
dered Africans. 



543 

u My Lords, we have heard much of* St 
Domingo : The example of that island, it 
is said, should deter us from the agitation 
of all these questions : The horrid scenes 
that have been passing there have all been 
occasioned, it has been said, by the disse- 
mination of speculative notions about li- 
berty and the rights of man among the ne- 
groes of that island. My Lords, the dread- 
ful example of St Domingo makes a con- 
trary impression upon my mind. What- 
ever speculative notions might be dissemi- 
nated among the negroes of St Domingo, — 
I give little credit to the assertion of such 
dissemination ; but whatever it might have 
been, I maintain it could have done no 
mischief at all ; it never could have taken 
effect without a superabundance of the black 
population. That is the thing to be dread- 
ed : The annual importation from Africa 
increases the black population in the West 



544 

Indies in an exorbitant degree, and in the 
most dangerous manner. It is the conti- 
nuance, therefore, of the slave-trade, not 
the abolition of it, which it is to be feared 
may whet the knife of St Domingo in our 
island of Jamaica. 

" My Lords, being decidedly for the origi- 
nal motion, I cannot agree to the previous 
question ; and I hope your Lordships will 
not agree to it : For it would ill become 
your Lordships to delay for a moment to 
vote inhumanity to be inhumanity, injus- 
tice to be injustice, and bad policy to be bad 
policy." 



THE END. 



Printed by R. S. Rixtotjl, Dundee. 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: March 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



